 Good evening, everybody. Welcome to modern day debate. We're going to be debating tonight. Is Earth the center of the solar system? And to start us out, 10 minutes on the floor. We have Austin Witsit. Thank you for being here. Yeah, man. Thanks for having me. I'm going to share my screen real quick. So I didn't extensively put this together, but we're going to go through it. So the question is, can the universe be geocentric, meaning Earth centered? Can the Earth be in the center of the universe? So here I have in the cosmos be rotating around a stationary Earth. And let's see. So where are we? They're awesome. I got to fix up my screen capture because everybody can't see it. If you want to just stop that for one second, so sorry about that. For some odd reason, it's displaying the wrong monitor. So I'm just going to move this over. Sorry about that, everybody. Just one second. So sorry. There we go. Sorry about that, everybody. Let's carry on and your PowerPoint's ready. All right, cool. So I see the title says, like, is the Earth the center of the solar system? Not particularly the question, of course, but is the universe geocentric? So can the Earth in the center of the universe? So here I have, can the cosmos be rotating around a stationary Earth? And where we get the idea that we're not doing that is from the Pernicus. And of course, that's a whole rabbit hole. If you've never looked into the history of heliocentrism and how it ties to the church and how kind of the mainstream claims about how that all went down or untrue, go watch heliosorcery. And you'll see very quickly what happened. It's pretty crazy. But anyway, that's where you get the Copernican principle, which is physical cosmology. The Copernican principle states that humans on the Earth or in the solar system or are not privileged observers of the universe. The observations from the Earth are representative of observations from the average position in the universe. So it's the idea that the Earth does not occupy a special or unique position. There's nothing significant or unique about it. OK, so here we have my boy, Albert Einstein, saying, but when I was a student, I saw that experiments of this kind already been made in particular by your compatriot, Mickelson, he proved that one does not notice anything on Earth that it moves, but that everything takes place on Earth as if the Earth is in a state of rest. Of course, what's funny is people will say, oh, you have to prove the Earth's not moving and all this. But actually, the default position is that the Earth's not moving. That's the default position. The claim is that actually we are moving multiple vectors, mind you. But he's talking about a test, of course, called Mickelson Morley. And what it is is you shoot two perpendicular light beams. They get split in the middle, they go out to a mirror, they reflect, come back towards each other in the middle and then go to a receiver. Whenever something is moving, right, based on what direction it's moving, it'll take one of the light beams longer to get to the receiver because it has to travel further, right, based on if it's moving with or against that motion. And so they developed this apparatus. And this is what it was expected to see. And when it says expected, the way that they got the expected value is they use the speed of light and the speed of the Earth. OK, that's how we got the expected predicted value. It's called a friend shift. This is what was expected based on 30 kilometer per second orbit of the Earth. But this is what we got, right? So what they said to try to explain it was that there was a contraction of the apparatus. This is what this is showing you right here. The apparatus contracted and it just so happened to contract that it was the exact amount to compensate for this missing difference. And it makes it look like there is no difference. Now, actually, what they saw was was closer to this right here, right? So there was a difference. There just wasn't what it was supposed to be. So long story short, they claim the apparatus contracted. Now, people will tell you that that's not the case. We can get into it tonight. That is just a fact. So supposedly the apparatus contracted, you just can't tell. And it just makes it look like the Earth is stationary. This is one of the most famous tests in the history of physics. I'm not keeping up with the time. Ryan, can you tell me how much time I have? So I have an idea. Oh, you got about what? Five minutes and 50 seconds. So it changed all changed all of physics. So here he is saying that he started thinking about when he's a student. He came across Mickelson experiment results and he soon came to the conclusion that the idea, our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether isn't correct if we admit Mickelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then, I have come to the conclusion. I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun. And if what's funny is people get all excited that he said it's revolving around the sun, like, yeah, we know he believes it is. He's literally he's literally saying, even though he believes it is, he's come to the conclusion that no optical experiment can actually verify that. Here's a list of questions about Mickelson Morley. I'm not going to run through them right now in the opener. I can pull them up later. But the talking point is that Mickelson Morley disproved the ether, had nothing to do with the motion of the Earth. Einstein didn't care about it, didn't know about it. That relativity had nothing to do with it, blah, blah, blah. All of that is incorrect misinformation. If you run through these questions, it's very easy to debunk it. Here is another quote. And the people say this is cherry picked. Well, we'll pull the papers up tonight if we need to. They're not cherry picked. And what cherry picked means is if put in or quote mining, if put into proper context, it would mean something other than what is being claimed. It means what am I claiming? It means that Einstein himself admits that you cannot use optical experiments to detect the motion of the Earth that you can't use terrestrial experiments to do that. So then if I go show you him saying that in context, that's not quote mining, that's not cherry picking. It's very simple. This is just a way to avoid the information he says here to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible terrestrial experiments. We've already remarked in section five that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. And before you put relativity forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to it. Like I said, we'll pull the paper up because if you spam quote mining and cherry picking, it's showing that you're intellectually distanced. So anyway, so this is a summarization of what happened. There was an issue on the table and it was, um, wow. The Earth may not be moving. It would mean getting rid of the component theory. So, uh, Dayton Miller, so what they said was, oh, it was just instrumental error, the friendship that we did detect and that a contracted in time slowed down to create the illusion the Earth wasn't moving. Dayton Miller's results when he replicated, it showed indisputably that instrumental error could not be the explanation for the friend shift observed. The figures changed gradually throughout the year and attained their maximum dimensions around September 21st, which corresponds to the autumn equinox and their minimum dimensions around March 21st, corresponding to the spring equinox, this can not be random instrumental error. And this is Einstein himself saying that if what Miller was detecting was true, his entire theory would collapse like a house of cards. There's the quote. So I'm going to go kind of fast here, but then you get into, uh, Hubble, right? And Hubble looks out and we get big telescopes. We look out deeper into space and we see, wow, everything's moving in relation to the Earth. And there were a sessional velocity of the galaxies are making the earthquake like it's in the center. That's not supposed to happen. So what do you say it says here, the universe must be expanding. And in fact, it's accelerating and expanding at this point in all directions to what once again, create the illusion that the Earth is stationary in the center. You see a reoccurring theme here. So here is, uh, the observations on a chart charted out with the telescope, but then we go to 1933 for Swicky looked at a galaxy cluster, coma cluster specifically, and he saw that there was only about 1% of mass that was needed to keep the galaxies from escaping based on gravity. So direct reputation of relativity right there, direct reputation 1933. And it was debunked before that a little side note here. Actually you can derive Kepler's laws from Newton's laws, which means there is no dynamic value to the law in the first place. Literally you can, you can do a kinematic derivation. You can get Kepler's laws from Newton's laws. And that's all it was. They, you could have the periodicity of it and then claim that there was some dynamics by changing values. Stellar parallax can literally be explained just by flipping the, the positions around, get the exact same angles, flipping it around to the earth being stationary. So parallax does not prove it. Stellar aberration also does not prove it by switching the actual position of the observer. It isn't exclusive. I'm running out of time to the, um, to the earth around space. So there's a lot more here. We'll just have to, what's up? Okay. There's a lot more in here, but we'll have to just kind of go through it during the debate, but long story short, then Mock came around and said, Oh, you think that the, uh, you thought that there's no way the earth could be in the center, but you overlook something, right? Even dynamically using Newton, the earth could be in the center if you account for things outside of solar system, which he didn't know about. Um, and then we can get into the specifics of that, but you would have a net, radially inward accelerative force that would keep the moving, uh, thing moving impressively relational mechanics. Andrea Cease, he breaks it all down, uh, Dr. Luca Poppe of Newtonian Machian analysis of the neo-Tikonian model of planetary motion in the European Journal of physics. What's so funny is people think they're prepared to say something about that, but I can't wait to get into it. And, uh, basically everyone that knows anything, including even Newton himself said that the earth can in fact be in the center of the universe. So long story short, in conclusion, all observations have shown that, whether that be Aries failure, Mickelson morally subsequent replications, uh, we have shown that the earth is stationary with long distance observations into space. And what happens is that heliocentric model constantly makes up fairy tales like dark matter, dark, any dark energy, et cetera, to say that everything that exists is just an illusion to make you think the earth is in the center of the universe, even though it's actually not. And that is a still man of the heliocentric model. So, uh, yeah, hopefully we can get into it. All right, sorry. Well, on the screen share there. Excellent. And, uh, yeah, just thank you so much, Austin, for your introductory statement. And I want to remind everybody hanging out in the live chat that we are a neutral debate platform. We're hosting debates on science, politics and religion. We hope you feel welcome here. And, Ozean, you have 10 minutes on the floor. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you. What's it and thank you for bringing up Copernicus is I think this is central to the point that the earth is not a preferred position within the universe. But I don't think that's where we find value. I think this is more of a philosophical question than it is a question about our physical location. Within the universe. And I think that's central to this argument when we come to like what's our worth and value within the universe. And when we're talking about a central, a centered worldview, we're usually talking about like a culture center, ethnic center, country center, religion, like is it centered to ourselves, our familial relationships, all life, or the universe overall. So I typically accept whatever the scientific consensus is as a belief and belief is not a naughty word. Like a lot of people want to see, I would say it's a rational belief is just a proposition that I hold as true as rational because it's justified by the methodological naturalism that we've developed as humanities to justify that belief in the worldview that I hold to as true as the universe exists, which you seem to believe is true. The universe is flat as far as we know with a little bit of a hump in the center that we can know is true based on the cosmic background rate radiation. And there is no center. So any center of the universe is part of privilege center of the universe really is an incoherent statement. So if you want to see the center of the solar system is the sun because that's the greatest amass within the solar system, that's what you can see. If you want to see the center is in the earth because that's where we live. I have no problem with that is a worldview because that's how you sort of conceptualize the reality around you. So and we can talk about the the science. I think it's sort of interesting where is sees gets his worldview where Mach is getting his worldview from. But as far as I'm concerned, there is no center. The CO centrism is false. The these mocking concepts you bring up are there's no truth to the matter. You can't prove that the earth is the center of the universe. You can't prove that the sun is the center of the universe. You can't prove there actually is a center of reality unless you can actually measure the entire size of our reality determine where the physical center is and you can't do that. So where you can get such type of ideas from is from it. See like Big Bang cosmology is true. Evolution is true. You can get value like we're centrists from is from like something like the strong anthropic principle where you necessarily exist in your value and purpose. Your center comes from like divine provenance where God decided that you would exist through his divine provenance and your value and purpose in life comes from your necessary existence. So you don't have to be in the center of God's physical reality because according to God that doesn't matter or you could come. You could be from an atheistic perspective. It could be something like the weak anthropic principle where the all past events must have necessarily existed of happen through evolutionary processes in the same type of processes for me to exist and my values come through those evolutionary processes through my psychology through my familial relationships with my children with my parents with my culture and with the society that I have around me. So I think that's sort of where we get these type of purposes and values that we have. I think that's more important than this concept of word physical reality, whether the earth is flat and let's be fair, you you you typically argue that the world is flat. I know for this to be you're arguing that we can conceptualize that the world is the center of the universe. But then you have to presuppose the sun is 93 million miles away. You have to presuppose that the Milky Way galaxy is actually a physical thing. Yet if you go by the mocking conception of reality, the Newtonian conception of reality that gravity is actually true, laws of motion are actually true. All these other concepts are actually true that these motions actually do exist. The reason why a cease developed his idea of relational mechanics is because he didn't like creationist models. He didn't like that the Catholic Church was involved in Big Bang cosmology because he viewed Big Bang cosmology as a creationist story and he's an atheist. So he was trying to reify these concepts from Newtonian mechanics and mocking concepts of the universe sort of rotating around the universe and he believes like the universe is infinite in size and eternally exists because he doesn't believe energy can be created or destroyed. So if you hold to like a ceases relative mechanics sort of view of reality would have to hold that energy and matter can be created or destroyed, it's eternally existed. The universe is infinite in size so there is actually no center of the universe. And I don't believe that's true but if you believe his claims and I think you would have to believe that is true I'd be interested in talking about Popov too and with that I think I'd like to get into some of those questions you wanted to get into in the open discussion and I'll leave it with that so we can talk about it. Awesome, well thank you so much Osean for your opening statement as well and just remind everybody once again both of our speakers will be linked in the description and all of these debates are uploaded to our podcast form within 24 hours where our debaters will also be linked there. Also if you're watching live if you're subscribed on our YouTube channel you can ask a super chat and those questions will be asked to our speakers at the end of our discussion. Without further ado let's hand it over to Austin to respond to some of what you just heard. Let's get into open discussion. Yeah so you said like there is no center to the universe and to say that there is is just incoherent. Yes. Okay can you give me an example of anything else that exists that doesn't have a center? Anything else that exists that doesn't have a center is if I'm not seeing the universe we have to know the size of an object to know what the center of the object is so with the universe itself we don't know what the size of the universe is. Do you know what the size of the universe is to know what the center is? I don't know what the size of the universe is no. So how do we know what the center is? Okay well if we're not moving everything moves around us that means that we're in the center. The way that we know we're in the center is that everything moves around us and in relation to us right? You agree that if the earth's not moving we would be in the center of the perceivable universe? Everything moves around you? Our location yeah as a me? The earth which is not an object actually right? So the globe like everything moves around me personally? Why are you doing this? If the earth's not moving would it be in the center of the universe? Well I want to know how it's moving is it rotating around us is the universe physical moving? Is this what we're doing bro? Yeah like we just answer it why can't you just answer in good faith? I'm trying to answer the question I need to know what this concept is for me to answer the question do I not? I said if the earth's not moving would it be in the center of the universe? Not necessarily it depends on what you you mean by the universe can you tell me what the universe is? Everything that we can observe to be the universe. What is it? What's it made of? Totality of all things observed. What is it? What does that matter? In my worldview I have a definition for what it is I want to know we're talking about the same thing. When I see the universe I mean all the physical matter all the fields all the energy that exists external to us when I talk about the universe that it interacts between with electromagnetic forces strongly nuclear forces all that type of stuff is that what you're talking about when you're talking about the universe? I just said the totality of everything that's known to exist. Totality so no I don't I don't I believe that the totality of everything that exists could be more than we can see. Yeah that's why I said known to exist. I've said perceivable universe. I like the word cosmos actually in this order. This is so simple. If the earth is not moving it's in the center of the universe. So you think that the only things that you can touch taste smell sense with your five senses are the only things that exist? I didn't say that. Okay then there's more things that exist than you can sense correct? I said the totality of what we know to exist or the perceivable universe. You know what perceivable means? Yes so the perceives so you don't think so what exists so to me the universe the reality is everything that exists just not what's perceivable. So when I talk about the totality of the universe I mean everything that exists everything that exists. So when I say universe I mean everything that exists. This is crazy. Your mic's clipping just a little bit. You get mine's clipping sorry just a little tiny bit. I'll move closer. So when I see universe I mean I mean it's a little hot. No it's a little hot that's what I'm saying but yeah it's okay. I'm probably talking to a lot. So when I see everything that when I see universe I mean everything that exists everything that exists. So we do mean different things. This is just sophistry right because it's not sophistry. It is. No it's not. Explain to me how it's sophistry. Because it's you're using fallacious arguments with the intention. Explain how it's fallacious. I'm in the middle of talking. Okay let's let's let them speak. Yeah sophistry is the use of fallacious arguments with the intention to deceive or mislead the audience. I mean maybe it's not as much blatantly deception but it's just like convoluting the conversation. It's not good faith. Because this should have been like a yes or no answer. It's a binary question. If the earth is not moving is it in the center of the universe and the answer is yes. I'm so tell me where my lie is when we when we haven't agreed on what the definition of the universe is. Tell me where my lie is with it. You're calling me a liar now. Tell me where my lie is. When I see the universe I mean everything that exists. Is that what you mean by the universe. If if you don't mean that by the universe then I am not lying. Okay everything that we see when we look out in the sky. I've said it four different ways. Perceivable universe. Cosmos. Everything that we perceive or know to exist. We're talking about when we look out in the sky. We see a whole bunch of stuff. The current belief is that it's really really big. That there are giant planets and stars and galaxies and black holes. And that we are tucked away in a little insignificant corner of the universe. What I am pointing out is that if the earth's not moving based on all the observations for example solar and sidereal rotation galaxy rotational speeds or positions. We see that if we're not moving then the earth is in the center of the universe. That's why the current model says it's just an illusion that the earth is in the center of the universe right. No it doesn't follow that we're in the center of the universe. There could be more stuff to that side of us in the universe than in that side of us in the universe. It doesn't follow that we're in the physical center of the universe unless you know the dimensions of the universe or the universe is infinite in size and the universe is infinite in size and it's an incoherent statement to say we're in the center of an infinite size. Appeal to possibility. What? Appeal to possibility. That's not an appeal the possibility. The earth could be I mean the universe could be infinite. And by the way can you give me one example of something that's actually infinite in reality? No. Okay so appealing to an impossible possibility. That's what Assise believes it is. He believes the universe is infinite in size. Oh appeal to an authority of someone appealing to an impossibility. Yeah a hostile witness a person that you appeal to when it comes to your worldview. Do? Assise the guy that wrote relative mechanics the guy that you appeal to for your worldview a hostile witness towards your worldview believes that the universe is infinite in size. That's how he gets the idea the concept that the earth is in the center is because he says the universe is infinite inside. All or nothing fallacy. So like just because I know that's a genetic fallacy but that's okay. No a genetic fallacy is dismissing an argument based on the source of it. And what I'm saying is that you are trying to say somehow I must lean credence to this idea because I've invoked him before and I of course didn't invoke his authority. I invoke the actual dynamic explanation that he shows. It's a dynamic equivalence. It's called relational mechanics. He shows that using both Einsteinian or Newtonian mechanics yours can be in the center of the universe. I also don't claim either of those things I make this very clear but everyone has to straw man it right which is I'm just pushing back against the claim that we know that the earth's not in the center of the universe because with in your own belief system. Right. They you have to concede a kinematic and a dynamic equivalence. So I think like you're not really why don't we have a good faith conversation. I am. I don't know if we're in the center of the universe or not because I don't know where the center of the universe is. Okay but do you get when you say to claim that there's a center to the universe is incoherent is iconic because that would be the only thing in all of existence that doesn't have some type of central point and that doesn't mean that there's a point where the limit is equidistant from there. Right. But a central point a central point. Yeah. Where's the center point of the universe. Let's say we flip something over and it has depth. Can we find the center of that depth. Yes. We can find the center of something where we know that when we know the width of something we can find the center of the depth that we don't want to know that thing. Okay. Okay. Now let me ask you this. Do you believe in the Big Bang? I accept it as the current cosmological model a little goop to though. He just published a paper recently sort of interesting that he refused some cold dark matter which I like but I don't see what happens. So do you. So that obviously is the claim that the whole universe started in a singularity. Right. Which is an infinitesimally inconceivably small singular points. No, it doesn't conclude with the singularity. It's that's a singularities hypothesis. So goop to argues for a cyclic CCC model which is like a cyclical cosmological cycle like penrose Roger Penrose argues where it continuously expands and like previous particles expand it under universes. So he doesn't believe it like it began in any one state. If you understand what I'm talking about. All right, man. He believes in the CCC model. Okay. So it doesn't begin in a singular. Why are you telling me what someone else believes? Mainstream cosmology claims that there was a singularity. No. In a Big Bang. You're wrong. So you disagree with the fact that everything started with the singularity. Yeah, modern cosmology doesn't say it started with the singularity. Where did it start? Expansion. What was it doing before it expanded? Oh, we don't know. Where is it expanding from? We don't know. What was it expanding into? According to science but I'm not as scientific. I don't worship IV and DV. So I am a ontological naturalist. If you want to know my worldview, I get value and purpose and stuff from other ways and whether I'm in the center of reality or not. So I don't care whether I'm in the center of reality or not. That's not where I get value and purpose. If you want to talk about that, that would be a different discussion. I want to talk about how you couldn't have a singularity with everything expanding out from that point and then turn around and claim that there is no center because that's incoherent, right? Well, I never said there was a singularity, did I? So you deny mainstream cosmology and that's fine. That's not mainstream cosmology. Yes, it is. No, it's not. You're wrong. So with the paper. Hold up the scientific consensus about the singularity being scientific consensus. Like that's what you find in pop science, dude. That's pop science. That's incorrect. Okay, cool. If you don't believe in a singularity, I don't care. Okay. I don't believe in a singularity. This is the reality of what happened. This is the... Let's just talk about how your belief system was crafted. My belief system? Yeah, your belief system was crafted. What's a belief? What's it? What's a belief? So we can be on the same page. What's a belief? Because we see belief like this in this book. Something that one accepts to be true. Okay, thank you. So yeah. Is my belief justified? It certainly is not. And that's what we're about to discuss. Why is it not justified? What makes it unjustifiable? We're about to discuss that. Okay. Can you just tell me why it wouldn't be justified then? Because it's not sufficiently supported with empirical evidence. You need empiricism. It's effectively evolved into an unphosphiable move the goalpost glorified reification fallacy. Well, that would be a straw man argument because I don't use empiricism to justify my beliefs. But that has nothing... Okay. You asked me why I think your belief isn't justified. Well, then you would be straw man, E.B. Because you don't know what I used to justify my world. Then why would you ask me? You asked me why I think it's not justified. Because you straw man your opponent. What's it? All right, let's give Austin a chance to speak. Just to kind of hold your thought for one second there. The answer is that it's antithetical to all empirical evidence throughout the history of mankind. And you have developed an unphosphiable reification fallacy. Right. So let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. Can we see if we can meet somewhere? What would be the default position regarding on if the Earth is in the center of the universe or stationary or if the Earth is actually moving all these different vectors? What would be the default position? I don't know. You don't know? No, the answer would be I don't know. You know what Occam's razor is? Yeah, whatever has the least amount of elements would be the closest to the truth. It's most likely to be true. It's not always true, of course. Most likely to be true, yeah. We can both agree that doesn't mean it actually is, but not really the point. The point is that if we start there, which is where you should always start logically, then the Earth is not moved. Now, like when I say we don't feel the Earth moving, I don't need you to jump in and say, but the reason is because I know why that isn't really the point of the point is that that's the default position. And when we look up, we see everything move perpetually in a cycle over and over and over around us over and over. In fact, so much so we developed entire constructs of time based on the reliability of those cycles. So then there's a claim that says, well, sure, it looks like everything is moving around us, but that's an illusion is actually we are spinning, making it look like the sky is moving and it's spinning in such a way it makes it feel like we're stationary. So that could be true, but that is the next step. That's the additional claim. And so whenever people believe this and adopted it, that's when you start getting into like, say, Copernicus. And so when people thought, oh, well, maybe the Earth isn't special or unique in its position and it's small and the universe is huge or whatever, then we started making observations to see if that was true and it didn't work. That's the part I want to get into is the history of how it was developed and the evidence that went against it. Let's start with Mickelson more. Well, first, we're going to let Rosie and respond to some of what you just said. Yeah, first of all, you're talking about the history of a development and knowledge. You're not talking sort of like, but you're not talking about science. So when you're talking about the history, so the history of empiricism, I guess you were talking about, but like empiricism, like our knowledge of the universe evolved, like I spent a whole week talking about ancient cosmologies and stuff like that so if you look at like Central American cosmologies, they believed the world was what they saw within their own locale. They believed there were heavens above. They believed there was underworld below. They believed their world was confined by the place they could walk around. They also believed it was about their religious beliefs or cultural values, their cycles for harvest and stuff like that. If you go to biblical cosmologies of what they believed, they believed they could walk around their world. Like they didn't believe there was continents or anything like that. They believed their lands were all tied together. They could actually walk around it like in a couple of days. Like not like they have to get on a ship to go somewhere else. They believed like the pillars were mountains, like they were bordering them because they could see them. They were there, earthquakes and stuff like that. These were all things that they experienced every day. So when people want to reify the shape of the world to have continents and stuff with like the Gleason map, that is reification fallacies. So they're taking these concepts for the Bible and reifying them to mean something else that they weren't intended to mean. So I understand with like Copernicus there was like friction against that. But we don't get our purpose and values from the shape of the earth. We're not talking about the shape of the earth. Yeah. No, I know. But we don't get our purpose and value from where the center of reality is. That's not where we get our purpose and value. It doesn't matter where the earth is. Okay, but that's what the debate's about. It's just for the sake of the battle. I understand that. Yeah. And yes, but you're talking about calendars and cycles and stuff from looking at the stars. Yeah, that's not how we determine time. Yes, it's how we got times, how we got calendars, how we got how we did crops and stuff like that. It's how they did it all the world. I feel like you're trolling me almost. I'm not trolling you. Well, then Ozean, let's talk about the subject. Okay. And when I say that the earth does not occupy a special or unique position for those that don't know at home, that's called the Copernican principle. It doesn't necessarily even discuss whether or not we are special as individuals or if there's a meaning or purpose. No one said anything about that. Then why do you say special or unique? Just one second, Ozean. Why does it matter at all? If Austin has a specific example he was about to go into, I know he wants to respond to what you just said, but if you can move into that next topic just to get us back on track, that would be great. Thank you. Yeah. So that's just actually what it is, special or unique, meaning the earth does not occupy a special or unique position because if it was in the center, for example, it would be the most unique, the most special. But the idea is that it's no more special than any other place. And that's why I literally read the definition of the Copernican principle. But let's just fast forward through the story, right? We have Kepler's laws, so we have Copernicus, we have Kepler's laws. We have Newton claiming to do gravitational or dynamic claim when actually you can actually flip it around and derive it. It's based on the periodicity of all of it. But anyway, we move forward. That's mass attracting mass, but Newton said, I don't really know what would be causing this and it would have to be like a direct act of God. And it blows my mind. And there would have to be like an ether there for it to even work. But here I can kind of take Kepler's laws and then like reverse engineer variables and claim that they're dynamic or whatever, right? So then we move forward with people believing that that's what's going on. And then we get to the point where we develop technology that could test that claim. So Newton and all the people before him thought that the sun, their model was, the sun is in the center of the entire universe. That's what Newton thought. That's what everyone else before him claiming heliocentrism thought. That's what heliocentrism mean. Feel free to drop it. It means earth center, I mean sun centered universe. Universe, yeah. But we both agree, obviously, that even within your own paradigm, that is no longer the case. Right. Right. So they and they actually, if you read their literature, they actually had like esoteric belief systems about worshiping the sun and how the sun was symbolic of enlightenment and illumination and apotheosis, the path to becoming God. Like they literally, literally were in the practice of traction all the way back to Horus, the sun god. That was their belief. Now some of them maybe took it more of like a metaphysical enlightenment type of ideology as opposed to something physical. But some people, some people did. Yeah. Like that people were talking about the main characters. Like what did Kepler, do you know what Kepler claimed was going on in space? No. That the sun was singing some like a heavenly song effectively and that the sound it was emitting was so majestic it caused everything to move around. An acoustic orbit due to like the heavenly position of the sun. So anyway, the point is that we move forward and we start that that model changes. Well, because Kepler we discovered it was wrong. We discovered that Newton was wrong. Like as far as mainstream science is concerned, they were wrong. Okay. But then what happens is these are all just ideas. And the idea was like, oh, we see everything moving around us, but we just can't feel us moving. And here's a model of how we could all be going around the sun, the sun, the sun, the sun. They had a philosophical bias towards the sun. Literally they write about it. They believe the sun was the most important thing in the in all of existence. They thought it was symbolic of enlightenment. Now in your model now, the sun is insignificant. In fact, it's just another star and it's not even a really big one. It's nothing special. So that shows that their philosophical foundation, their ideology when they created it was so far off and ridiculous that that isn't science at all, right? But it's all good. It could still be true, I guess. But then we get to when we can use instruments to test it. We can do an actual experiment. We can do a measurement, a test. And then we get to Mickelson Morley, right? Yeah. Okay. Now, do you agree that when we got to Mickelson Morley, everyone was like super excited about how innovative of a technology interferometry was. Everyone thought, oh my gosh, this is incredible. Like we can use light to make mind-blowingly precise measurements of motion and distance, right? Well, they thought they could. They thought they could be able to detect the ether. You agree we can use light to measure motion and distance? Yeah, we do it all the time. Right. And like it's the most precise form of measurement. I mean, we can do some measurements we can't use light to do. But yeah, we use radar. The most precise though, right? Because it has. Sonar, we can't use it underwater to do measurements. But yeah, it depends on the measurements. But yeah, it's relatively, I sort of agree, is very precise. We're talking about interferometry in light. But anyway. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I just, I'm not trying to be like pedantic, but I, yes, I agree. So Mickelson Morley, there was a prediction and it was, if we assume the earth is tilted spinning and revolving around the sun. And in order to explain the observations, it has to be moving 30 kilometers a second around the sun. And so if we take now, like we had done many tests at the time with different mediums and stuff that showed that the speed of light, right, would change based on the velocity of something moving. So like if you take a table and you spin it, all of a sudden, it would be what you called the speed of light plus velocity. You could do it in water. It was done in water in like the early 1800s. They thought that, yes. But no, it was empirically measured and proven. What ended up happening was everything started changing conceptually. The way people interpreted C plus V and proportional velocity changed. But before we get on, I want to get into the weeds, right? Just to make sure everyone understands. They didn't prove it. They thought they were measuring that, yes. It consistently directly, like if I, if I spin something and then the rate at which I measure light, the friendship I get changes directly proportionate to how fast it moves. That's what happens, right? Then that is obviously logically, you have to account for the velocity with something moves and so much so you can predict what the friendship will be. Well, this is what I want to talk about, Mikkelson Morley, because it's clearly, do you agree it's like one of the most important experiments in the history of mankind? It helped to lead to a refutation of the ether. He rechanged like all the physics. It changed all the physics. It helped to like pave a way for relativity. Yeah, sure. Well, you know, like when Neil deGrasse Tyson says, it's the most famous failed experiment of all time. He's not just saying that. That's what it's referred to as in academic circles. Okay, so it was, it changed all the physics. It threw away the ether, introduced relativity, introduced all kinds of things. A fourth dimension of space and time. Okay, so the point is. Well, I was 1915, but yeah, it paved the way for theory of relativity. But without Einstein, we wouldn't have got that. Changed all the physics. We probably wouldn't have got it anyways. There were other people working on relativity, so. Okay, maybe we'll have to do that. At the time, everyone believed in Newtonian mechanics and they believed in Newtonian gravity and they believed in an ether. So let's like ask the questions that you said you wanted to go through about Mikkelsen-Morley, because for those who don't know, you shoot light. Okay, just you shoot a light beam. And then they use like a silver mirror and they can, or a beam splitter. They can split the beam. The reason they did that is because if you shoot the light out, say you shot two light beams out, there's no way to ensure that they're perfectly in phase with each other, right? So you can't really have reliable measurements. So you send one beam out and then you split it. That way you know that they're perfectly in phase. And they go out perpendicular or orthogonal. They come back, right? Then they come back, recombine and go to the receive. Now, if the earth is moving, right? Then you should, what was understood to happen based on the way that it works, interferometry. That there should have been a displacement from one light beam to the other based on how fast the earth is moving and what direction you were going, okay? But they didn't get that. It's very simple. If you're swimming with the stream or swimming against it, you go different speeds. It's, if you're moving with the orbit of the earth through space or you're going against it, then it's going to, the light beam will have to go further distance, right? Based on the motion of the earth. As the catch up to the earth effect. It was based on two presuppositions. That was light being a wave. And that was that waves had to travel through a mechanical medium. So they were presupposing, there must be a mechanical medium called the luminiferous ether that light was traveling through. That was part of the hypotheses. So they were trying to measure that with the Mickelson-Morley experiment. All right, look. So they also assume the earth is orbiting. Was that the case though? Yeah, they believed that there was a medium. But did they have other reasons to believe that the earth was orbiting the sun and was rotating around the axes? No, other than the fact that had just been accepted for so long and so they always interpret what goes on the sky, that it must be, no. But they did have other, they did have other justifications that they used to make those assumptions, right? Yeah, like Newton believed in worshiping the sun and. But it wasn't based on worshiping the sun. They had other observations, right? I can pull them up. I know, I know what they are. Okay, then let's not straw man their position, their arguments, their own arguments. Let's not straw man them. Let's not straw man Mickelson-Morley, right? They already accepted the proposition that the earth was orbiting the sun and that the earth was rotating along its axial tilt. And so what they were trying to test was if there was an ether that, and they believe that light was a waveform, we've later concluded that light can be quantized and acts as a particle or a wave through the double slit experiment, right? So we can quantize light and stuff like that. And that's, that's later. Can I share my screen? What are you going to, I have like. I want to go through the questions. It seems like we're, Well, just before you share screen, let's let Ozzy and rep his last thought there if you got more to say. No? Okay. All right, let's screen share. No, that's okay. Yeah, I was going to say, I figured you'd jump right on that if you had something else to say. You can just read the experiment. All right, you're up and running. Let's go through the questions. It falsified the ether. Okay, did Mickelson-Morley debunk the ether? Falsified. Oh, it falsified it. So it did. Enteres, yes. Your answers, yes. Okay. According to the authors of the paper, yes, they all falsified it. No, they said it, they said it falsified a stationary ether. The luminiferous ether. No, stationary specifically. Okay, fine. That's what they called the luminiferous ether, was it stationary? No, no. They didn't know if it had movement within it or if it was stationary. It's called the luminiferous ether, the light bearing ether, the medium that sustains electromagnetic propagation. Okay, but they knew obviously that either the earth could be stationary and there's a slight drift within the ether or the earth is orbiting through space and there is not a stationary ether. Technically the ether could be moving with it so perfectly, but of course that wouldn't work because you have a tilt and a wobble and a rotation and orbit and all this other stuff. Yeah, so. Anyway. So they falsified the stationary ether according to the authors. According to the authors, correct. Okay, is all that is needed to explain Mickelson morally from within a heliocentric framework the removal of an ether? No, they needed other observations for what they had. Observations. And they had other observations to believe that we have a heliocentric framework. No, it's assuming that the heliocentric model is true, right? Is the only thing that you need to do to explain the results of Mickelson morally get rid of the ether? We've already established it was an unexpected result, right? Like I can pull on and sign up saying it. So you had the problem with Lorentz and Fitzgerald that was trying to save the stationary ether by appealing to length contraction because they wanted to save the stationary ether to explain the results. But of course, you didn't have to do that. Okay, so what I'm asking you is obviously they expected to get a certain friendship based on the assumption the earth is orbiting through space, okay? They did not get that. So they had to come up with some type of answer to explain why I'm asking you if is it the only thing you need to do is get rid of the ether to explain it within the heliocentric paradigm? Is that all you need to do? Yeah. Okay, his answer is yes. That is incorrect though because we know that there were many other things done and we can get into in just a second. Okay, can we use an interferometer to detect the motion of an object moving in a curved path? Like the Sanyak effect, for example. As the Sanyak effect, you can measure the rotation of the earth. So we can use interferometry to detect an object moving in a curved path? A ring laser gyroscope, you can measure the rotation of the earth. So we can use interferometry to detect the motion of an object in a curved path? The rotation, the orbit of the earth around the sun is too slow. We can't make an interferometer large enough to detect the motion of the earth around the sun. Okay, so the answer is yes. You can use interferometry to detect the motion of an object in a curved path. The answer is can you do that without the existence of an ether? Yes. Right. Okay, because you believe there is no ether. So then is the earth moving in a curved path around the sun? Yeah, we have satellite imagery. Okay, so can interferometry be used to detect an object such as the earth moving in a curved path around the sun with or without an ether? Theoretically, but as far as I understand, you cannot build, we can't build one large enough to do so. Okay, so we made the point here, which is that you can't just get rid of the ether to explain it. Because your paradigm claims, for example, ring laser gyros using interferometry, they can detect the motion of the earth, the rotation of the earth has nothing, you don't need an ether for that. So just getting rid of the ether doesn't help you. So what they did was that you end up getting relativity. And what they claimed was Newton was wrong. They claimed Newton was wrong. Because Newton said that an object will continue in a straight path unless an outside force acts upon it. And this is important at the audience to stay with me. It's super important. This changed all physics is why people still think the earth can be flying through space, even though it clearly isn't. So Newtonian mechanics was proven, Newtonian gravity was proven wrong. I'll let you answer, because Newton said an object will continue in a straight path unless an outside force acts upon it. So he claimed that there was a force called gravity from the sun acting on the earth, pulling it around it in a curved path, right? But we didn't detect it. So what did Einstein do? Einstein came in, said Newton was wrong, actually gravity isn't a force. We are free falling in a linear path, right? We're free falling in a linear path, not a curved path from the perspective or our reference from the earth. It's straight. And that's why you're not able to detect it with interferometry because that combined with space, contraction and time dilation. Do it. So Newtonian dynamics required appeal to pseudophores is called central petal and central fugal force to explain orbital mechanics, to explain Kepler's laws, which wasn't required for general relativity. So under general relativity, the orbits find the path of like least resistance around the sun. So we don't have to appeal to central petal and central fugal forces with the theory of relativity just to clarify that. But the point is really simple. We thought they thought the earth was moving around the sun in an orbit. And so it was supposedly moving 30 kilometers a second. So using that value, the velocity of light and the velocity of the earth, you can then predict how much of a friendship, a separation between the light beams there should be based on how fast the earth is moving. They did not observe that. So Einstein comes in and tries to help them fix it. The way he does this is say Newtonian gravity, we just now, we just now read Einstein specifically saying that he came across the results of special relativity and that was the, or of Mickelson Morley. And that was the first path that led him to special relativity. But the point is that they said, Oh, well, we're not actually, gravity's not a force acting on the earth, pulling it in a curved path around the sun. It's actually free falling in a linear path, a straight path, right? And that there's no actual force acting upon it. So you can't detect it with interferometry. Then they said that in, in relation to the sun, which is where we're supposedly orbiting, right? All motions relative in relativity. So you can never say something is moving unless you say it in relation to something else. So the earth orbits in relation to the sun. So what Einstein says is that the apparatus contracted in the direction of motion relative to the sun and that time slowed down just a sufficient amount to compensate for the missing time difference and make it look like the earth is stationary. Not what Einstein said. But that's what Fitzgerald and, or Lawrence Fitzgerald said to save the ether. This is what Einstein said. So by the basis of theory of relativity, the method of interpretations is irreparably more satisfactory, which is appealing to the law, Occam's razor, which is what he's doing. According to this theory, there is no such thing. This is after your quote that you posted earlier. According to this theory, there's no such thing as especially favored unique coordinate system to occasion the introduction of the ether idea. And hence there could be no ether drift or any experiment with which to demonstrate it. Here, the contraction of moving bodies follows from the two fundamental principles of this theory without the introduction of a particular hypothesis as a prime factor involved in this contraction. We find not the motion in itself to which we cannot attach any meaning, but the motion with respect to the body of reference chosen in the particular case in point. Thus for a coordinate system moving with the earth, the mirror system in Mikkelsen morally is not shortened, but is shortened for a coordinate system, which is at rest relatively to the sun. So it's not shortened for a coordinate system relative to the sun. So it's not actually shorted. All right. That's what I just said, though. I just said in relation to the sun, because our alleged orbit is motion relative to, in relation to the sun, that's what we're supposedly orbiting around. So that in relative to our motion around the sun, the apparatus is contracting. Now, here is- But you understand it's not actually physically contracting, though, right? It's not- Well, Einstein specifically said that it is physical and everyone claiming that it's optical isn't correct. It's not physically contracting. Oh, is he sharing, too? No, I'm not sharing. Okay. So look, I'm going to show this real quick, right? So here's what he said. In one of the most notable of these attempts, what attempts is he talking about? He's talking about the attempts to measure the motion of the earth in space, right? And he's determined that, you know, you can't do it with any terrestrial experiment because they're all negative and I had to put relativity for it. And the most notable of these attempts, Mikkelsen devised a method which appears though, as though it must be decisive, right? Okay. So then he explains, he explains how the test works. He comes down here and he says- Just seem quite head up. When the body is moving perpendicularly to the planes of the mirrors from that resulting when the motion is parallel to these planes, although the estimated difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Mikkelsen morally reformed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result, a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lawrence and Fitzgerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the ether produces a contraction of the body in the direction of motion. The amount of contraction being just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned above. Comparison with the discussion in section 12 shows that from the standpoint also of the theory of relativity, this solution of the difficulty was the right one. And what was the solution to the difficulty? To say that the object was contracting in the direction of motion just the sufficient amount to compensate for the missing time difference which should have been exceedingly small but still should have been there and been clearly detectable because of interferometry. So Einstein himself says that from the standpoint also of relativity, the body was contracted in relation to motion to compensate for the missing time difference. He then says what the interpretation is more satisfying with relativity because of the bias with space and time, meaning there's a different interpretation from relativity. Well, it's more satisfactory because it meets Occam razors. It has less assumptions because Lawrence and Fitzgeralds are appealing to multiple concepts where he's just appealing to his two concepts of light is constant in all frames of reference and the laws of physics are constant in all frames of reference. But he goes on to clarify this in the rest of this quote, which you're not covering, which is... Bro, I know we just... I brought that up because you read this just a second ago, right? But he's not seeing... He's not seeing it actually shortens. Oh, my gosh. Yet, yes, he is. No, he's not. Read the last part again. But it is shortened for a quarter system which is a rest relative to the sun. Okay, so now in response. Okay, the earth is supposedly orbiting. What is the earth supposedly orbiting? Okay. Thus for a coordinate system moving with the earth, the mirror system of Mickelson-Morley is not shortened. The mirror system of Mickelson-Morley system is not shortened. Yes. Meaning if you have a coordinate system on the earth that's moving with the earth, then it's not going to be shortened for you. And the actual reason for that is because the shortening that's happening is in the coordinate system in relation to the sun, right? So if you're at the sun... So everything's contracting at the same rate. So if you're... So if you're at the sun... It wasn't on mine, you guys don't understand this. So if you're at the sun, it looks, from the sun's perspective, it looks like it's shortening. Yeah. Now, he also... From your perspective, it's not shortening. Okay. I said that when you're on the earth, it's not going to shorten for you, okay? It's going to shorten in relation... Because it's not shortening, it's just appearance of shortening. Let's give Austin at least 30 seconds to respond and then we'll kick it back. It's going to shorten in relation to the sun. When we're talking about the orbit of the earth, then we're talking about it orbits in relation to the sun, which means when the earth is orbiting in relation to the sun, the apparatus will contract in relation to the motion around the sun. So when you're on the earth, you're not going to see any contraction. It's not going to contract for you. It contracts in the coordinate system of the sun, okay? But that's the whole point we're trying to see about if it is actually... That's why he says that we see also from the standpoint of relativity that that solution to the difficulty was the right one. So why would he be saying that the solution to the difficulty, according to relativity, is the same one as the body contracting in relation to motion? If what he meant was it has nothing to do with it. It's not physically contracting, right? It's physically contracting relative to the two coordinate systems, which is the whole idea of theory relativity. Well, he actually has a quote. He came out and he said, there seems to be a lot of confusion in the matter of contraction. I see... I hear people falsely claiming that it's merely optical, but that is not true. It is a real physical phenomena in that it can be measured. Now, I want to get kind of the week. I want everyone to know the truth, though. They didn't detect the motion of the earth when they expected to. So what did they do? They had option one, accept the earth's not moving because the interferometry was super precise and should definitely have measured it. It was over 10 times more sensitive than it needed to be. So you could just accept the earth's not moving. Option B or option two, whatever. The next option is throw out all of physics and change it. And that's what they did. And they claim that the earth is orbiting the sun with no ether. That time slows down. There's time dilation. That there's length contraction. The speed of light is constant. That the gravity is not a force and that we're free falling in a straight path. We're just curving at the same time, but we can't tell from the earth. So we can agree on that. They did all those mental gymnastics. Basically it is, yeah, the earth is moving, but there's a stubbornly persistent illusion that makes it look like we are stationary. Right. Now you're appealing to an early 20th century test to determine that we can't measure the motion of the earth. No, it's just important for people to understand what happened. This is the only reason relativity. You Einstein said himself. But that was in that. Go ahead. I said if it wasn't for Michael, he said like the embarrassment of Michael Sim morally, the embarrassing result of Michael Sim morally, if it wasn't for that, that no one would have even considered relativity as a halfway redemption. That's what he said. So that's the reason people had to accept relativity because they needed it to explain why we don't detect the earth moving. That's a fact. How does this support geocentrism? And if the hypothesis was that the earth was moving relative to a stationary ether, just be clear. So they falsified the idea that would, that's what we agreed on, that the earth was moving relative to a stationary ether. So how does this prove geocentrism? How does this support geocentrism? Because that was not the hypothesis. They never hypothesized that the geocentrism or helium was true. That's irrelevant. Has nothing to do with either claim. Okay. Let me ask you this. Let me ask you this. With helocentrism or geocentrism? Let me ask you this. If the earth is stationary and the universe is geocentric, right, and we create an instrument that can measure motion of the earth, and it goes to try to measure the earth in motion What would you get? What would be the prediction of a stationary geocentric earth? What would be the prediction? If we, if we used interferometry to try to measure the motion of earth, but the earth was actually stationary and the universe was geocentric, right? The earth was actually stationary. Then what would be your result? What would be the prediction of a geocentric earth or universe? Why am I limited to just interferometry? Why can I? Because that's what we're talking about that test. The answer is that you would not, you would not expect to detect any motion because the earth is not in motion. Why can I use satellites? Why are you, why are you, why are you ignoring it? So the heliocentric model had a prediction that we would have fringe shifts based on 30 kilometers a second. Geocentric model has a prediction that we're not going to measure motion. And the, the actual evidence matched geocentrism. That's just a fact. So instead of accepting the evidence for what it is, they just threw all the physics out through all the father heads of electrical field theory throughout the antecedent to propagation, the antecedent to waving motion. They threw everything out. They flipped the whole world of physics on its head so they could keep the belief that the earth was moving around the sun. That is, that is a accurate depiction of history. No, it's not because the Mikkelsen-Morley hypothesis had nothing to do with heliocentrism or geocentrism. You're, you're, you're not being honest about their claim, which is sophistry. So stop being a sophist. Stop trying to deceive people about what Mikkelsen-Morley experiment was about, which was about if earth was moving through a stationary luminiferous ether which is what they claimed they falsified and nothing to do with geocentrism and nothing to do with if the earth was the center of the universe or not. That claim was not falsified. It was not proven. So show me a test that proves, that demonstrates that the earth is stationary. That is not, what was the claim? That's not the null hypothesis. Null hypothesis is nonsense. Null hypothesis would be measurement that would be outside of expectations. So I can show that the earth is moving. I can show the earth is moving. We have satellites that we can watch that the sun goes that the earth goes around the sun. That shows that you also don't understand your own model because in order to determine whether or not the earth is in the center of the universe, you have to get outside of the galaxy in your own model. But please don't run away from the point. Don't run away from the, you can't get outside of your own galaxy. That's what I said at the, that was my opening argument. You just said that you can sit in the satellite out and prove it. You're wrong. You don't understand the kinematic equivalence. But what I want to not run away from, so we can actually move on. So you don't know what the center is. I didn't claim Ozean. Exactly my point. Ozean, this is, this is what frustrates me so much about the conversation is you guys have a disingenuous script. You're talking to me. What script? You're saying it. A disingenuous script to say that I'm claiming that he's a flat earther or that he was a geocentrist or that the test was about. I didn't say any of that. They assumed the earth was moving around the sun. They assumed that there was an ether. The test was not about either one of those things. The test was not to prove the ether. You are objectively wrong. The test was to determine the test was to determine if the velocity of light was constant in relation to the assumed motion through the assumed ether. That's what it was actually about. You guys don't even understand what it was about. Well, they got an unexpected result, a perplexing result, as Einstein just said, which was that there wasn't the predicted friendship. Okay. Now there actually was a friendship though. So it couldn't be detecting the earth orbiting. We got we can't be detecting the earth orbiting. But what was the friendship that we did get? Why did we get a friendship? We'll give us a minute. One six that there one six that their expected result the determined it was instrument error. How do they determine that? Because all instruments have errors. So I'm sure they had a calibration standard. It was within whatever their calibration standard was. It fell outside of it, actually. It fell. So how far outside of their calibration standard was it? Pretty far. And then the I don't remember the exact values, but then the subsequent the subsequent test because it was over 10 times more sensitive than it needed to be. I know the way way more than like one six. I mean it was 10 times more sensitive than it needed to be. And then the subsequent test got even more. They did say instrumental error, but that's because if that's an accurate measurement, it completely refutes relativity. It completely refutes heliocentrism. The quote Einstein, if it's correct, his entire theory collapses like a house of carts. And you agree that without relativity, the Earth is in the center of the universe, according to Megelson Marley. All right, we're going to give Ozy and a chance to respond to some of the things that you've thrown out there. So go ahead, Ozy. And we'll give you a map. No, like you said, we can't we can't know if the universe is the center of the we can't know if the Earth is the center unless we can go actually outside of the universe and measure the universe. We can't know if the Earth is the center unless we can go outside of the universe not outside the galaxy. We'd have to go outside of the universe, measure the universe to know where the center is. Okay, dude, I know what I what I actually did was rebut your claim that we can know the Earth moves around the sun because we can send satellites out into space and see it. And I pointed out that even in your own paradigm that wouldn't prove what is moving. Okay, you would have to get the only way you could supposedly prove that the Earth is not in the center of the universe in your own belief because I don't believe in your second law of thermodynamics violation magic fairy tale that only the government can go to but say that it was real and they go out there into space, which again, they're not. But if they did, they would have to get outside of our outside of our galaxy in your belief system. Because they'd have to see that redshift was distributing evenly to your new position. We see redshift in relation to our galaxy. You understand we see redshift in relation to our galaxy, which means you would have to get outside of our galaxy to see that it makes everywhere look like it's in the center. Like, I guess we can move on for Michael Simorley, right? Like, clearly the test showed exactly what it would show if the Earth was stationary and the heliocentric model had to be revised and try to explain why it looked like the Earth was stationary. Correct? Do you agree that it that a solution to Michael Simorley is just that the Earth is stationary? No, because it was an hypothesis to be formalized. It wasn't what you were testing. Does it matter? I didn't ask. Okay. I didn't ask what happened. It does matter because it wasn't one of the assumptions for their test. You can't reify their test. I didn't ask you about a hypothesis. I said, do you agree that a solution for Michael Simorley's results could be just that the Earth is stationary? No. Why not? Because it wasn't one of the hypotheses for their test. That doesn't matter. So, Ronald Clark, the problem which now face science was considerable for there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable. Is Ronald W. Clark wrong when he says that about Michael Simorley? I don't know if he's right or wrong. Well, okay. Edward Morley, Albert Mickelson, Arthur Eddington, Albert Einstein, right? And everyone else that wrote about it, that was a physicist. I'm not filling you with authority. It's just common sense. Acknowledge that it made it look like the Earth was stationary. Okay. It made it look like the Earth was stationary. That's why Einstein comes in and says, yeah, but all motions relative, you can never really know. And that the two statements, the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun revolves around the Earth are equally valid. They're just coordinates. Okay. So, a solution to it would be that the Earth is stationary, obviously. That's obvious. Everyone admits it. Like, that's why I read the quote from Einstein. He says right here, let me read the quote from Einstein. All right. Let's do that. We need to read some time because he can just read it. Yeah, it's okay. But when I was a student, I saw that experiments of this kind had already been made, particularly by your compatriot, Mickelson. He proved that one does not notice anything on Earth that it moves, but that everything takes place on Earth as if the Earth is in a state of rest. That is Albert Einstein talking about Mickelson Morley. He believed in general relativity, special relativity. Okay. You agree he is clearly acknowledging that it makes the Earth appear to be at rest according to Mickelson Morley. He believes in relative frames of reference. So, relative coordinate systems that you have to like, to measure movement of any other thing, you have to have two locales, right? So, I don't see any problems with that statement. Einstein said that Mickelson Morley proved that everything happens on the Earth as if the Earth is in a state of rest. Okay. Okay, so then when I asked you, do you agree that a solution to Mickelson Morley could just be that the Earth is stationary? The answer is yes, even according to the very person that created your own theory and model. That's not what it proves. It proves you can consider anything at rest. I didn't say it proved anything. I asked you if it was a solution to the results. It could, no. Why not? So, I'm not going to be held to a position that the Earth could be considered the only thing that's at rest. I can consider myself to be at rest and everything else is in motion. So, I can consider the Sun to be at rest and everything else is in motion. I can consider the, if there is a center of the universe to be at rest and everything else is in motion, that's the idea of relativity. Okay, man. Like, it's so simple. That's not sophistry. Well, we'll let the audience... Oh, can I consider the Earth to be at rest and everything else is in motion? Absolutely. Can I consider my microphone to be at rest and everything else in motion around my microphone? Absolutely. Okay, so at the time... So, the idea of relativity. At the time, they expected to see a friendship based on the assumed orbit of the Earth. They did not see that. So, what happened was they had to throw Newtonian gravity out. They had to throw away the assumption of the first law of Newtonian mechanics when it came to the Earth, right? Which is based on inertia because it should have just continued to go in the same path unless an outside force acted upon it. And so, they threw out Newton, Michael Somerly debunked Newtonian gravity when it comes to the Earth and its orbit, and it changed everything, right? In physics. And it got rid of their understanding of the Earth. They had to do all of that to keep the Earth moving around the Sun. Now, we can move forward. We both agree that relativity says that the Earth could either be in the center and be stationary or it could be moving around the Sun because of relative motion. Either the Earth could be moving around the Sun or the Sun could be moving around the Earth. No, I don't believe there's any center, but I believe that you can consider anything to be the center reference frame to measure anything else. Okay. So, do you agree, Relativity, says that it's equally valid to say the Earth moves around the Sun or the Sun moves around the Earth? Under general relativity, yes, because you can make calculations using that method. But the other methods don't seem to work very well. But this goes back to, so if the Earth is moving around the Sun, right, then it's going to show that the Earth is stationary. This comes back to our first question, is if the Earth is stationary, you agree that it would mean geosyntricity. It would be geosyntric universe if the Earth is not moving at all. And you wouldn't answer that for some reason. But the answer is, of course, yes, right? That's why I can quote all the people that brought you your belief talking about that. It's not what geocentrism is. A geocentrism would be like absolute space. I don't believe there's an absolute center of anything unless you know the size of that physical domain. So, unless you can tell me the size of reality, I don't know what the center would be. This is great. So, let's just say, would the Earth is stationary, would that mean that it's the center of the perceivable, observable universe? No, if you want to hold it as the center to measure the movement of other objects, that's just a reference frame to do measurements. Well, you're just wrong. So, then we can move forward. I'm not. How am I wrong? Are you just using to make measurements of other reference frames? So, that's fine. If you're seeing it centered, why does it matter if the Earth is centered? Well, we're not talking about why. It matters. We're talking about how it's just a fact that if the Earth is stationary, that it would be in the center. But it's all good. Why does it matter? Why is it stationary doesn't have to be centered? Because based on all observations that we see, we see an equidistant limit in all directions. They call it the visible universe. Your model claims it's 46 billion light-years away. We see that there's even distribution or what people call redshift. We see that even distant galaxies move in relation to the Earth. They're recessional velocities move in relation to the Earth. That's just the limits of our physical, like optical limits of what we can see. That's the limit of the size of the universe. How does that explain recessional velocity? Can you just answer the questions? You think just the limits of what we can perceive is the limits of the size of the universe? Well, I'm not making a claim if it is or isn't the limit of the universe. Why did you ask the question? I'm not making that claim. This is pretty simple. We're not talking about, oh, say you have a limit to how far you can see in each direction. Sure, it would look like you're in the center because you can only see so far and you would be able to see the same distance in each direction. So it would look like you're in the center. That's not what this is about. I don't know why people say that. It's about the fact that even distant galaxies move in relation to the Earth and that everything's red-shifting and they claim that means it's moving away. It isn't about how far we can see. It's about how everything else in the sky is moving in relation to the Earth. That fast-forwards us to the 1920s. I would say yes or no question, though. Do you think what we can perceive from Earth is the limit of what actually exists? I don't know. Okay, then why did you ask me the question? I said, I don't know. I think that we could even... I asked, how did you know what the center is? No, I said the perceivable observable universe. Well, how do you know that's all that exists? I didn't say that is all that exists. Well, then how do you know it's the center? You're just going to go back to appealing to possibilities again, but we're talking about what the evidence shows. This isn't the truth. Well, then it's not what the evidence shows. So you're in a pure assist. You only accept what's true based on science? No. Intuitively, we all know that we're special. If you want to talk about a philosophical thing, we all know that this place is very special. We all know that we're given a perfect nightlight and a perfect daylight, that we have beautiful nature that provides for us, that one seed of an apple makes a million apples if you want it. Everything is incredibly beautiful. I can make a little mini version of myself. My wife and I can make little beautiful mini-mies, right? The place that we live is incredible and very special, and everything moves around. And in fact, we have a beautiful light show in the sky that's so reliable, we can use it to make calendars, dude. We can use it to know where we are, when we're seeing what we're seeing within forever. Then this doesn't matter. This conversation, because you don't actually believe that the universe exists, you don't believe the sun is 93 million miles away, what you care about is what makes you special. No, that's not true. What I care about is truth, okay? Well, then let's talk about what's true with this. That's what we're doing. You don't believe it's true that the universe exists. You don't believe it's true that the sun is 93 million miles away. So why are you arguing for it? The sun doesn't have to be 93 million miles away. You're trying to... It's a softest tree for you to argue that the Mickelson morally experiment was even a legitimate experiment. Isn't it softest tree to argue that there's galaxies, a Milky Way galaxy exists? All right. Let's try to back it up just a little bit here back to the topic of our debate. Somebody had asked earlier in the live chat. I'm so sorry, you can remind me who you were. If you guys could take a moment and just explain what the solar system, what that means to you. As a term, so let's give it a minute so that we can kind of clarify on that. Because the topic of our debate is, is Earth the center of the solar system? I didn't agree to that debate. It's an incoherent question and it doesn't make any sense. And I tried to tell you guys that, but I mean, we could answer the question, what is the solar system to us? But I never said that the Earth is in the center of the solar system. I don't believe in the solar system, but we can still answer it, I guess. Ozin, you know that's not what my position is, right? You know that. Yes. Right. Feel free to clarify. I'm sorry, I don't want to put a lot of question on you. And it's not my argument either, because it's not my argument either. Geocentrism, for his view, under the pop of, because I've read the pop of paper, the second one. Yeah, I don't believe his theory either. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's fine. You know, I just think it's the center of the cosmos. I don't necessarily believe in what people claim about the solar system. I don't have to believe the distance to the sun. I don't have to believe the supposed size of the sun. I don't have to believe there's a vacuum or the size of the planets, right? Like that's not really the point. The point is that the Earth, all observations show the Earth in the center. It could be more dense. The stuff could be way more local. It could be finite. It could be way younger. And that's all direct quotes from Edwin Hubble. He says, really, everything could be way more dense. Everything could be way closer to us and smaller. And the universe could be suspiciously young. And it could be finite. And it would give us the same observations. I could be a brain in a bat. Solicism could be true. Like these are philosophical questions, not empiricism. For the sake of our audience, if you could also answer the question just about the solar system, I think we got our answer from Austin there. So if you want to go ahead and give it a shot and then we'll carry on. Our solar system? I don't know. Like we have an asteroid belt. We have supposedly only eight planets now. And we took away Pluto. And Pluto has its two moons or something. I don't know. There's two things about the same size. And yeah, sure. It's close enough. The planet names, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Earth, Saturn. I think we're all right. Jupiter, Uranium. Thank you for that. Not mine. This is like, I'm not a liar. This is pretty painful. You can go ahead and talk about it if you want. We're just not talking concisely about the actual subject the whole time. And it's weird to me because it's pretty simple. It's like the default position is that the Earth is in the center of the universe. When you say it doesn't, I don't care about if it is or not. I only care about being special. It isn't true. Can you explain to me? Can you explain to me how that's a default position? Let me explain it. That isn't true. What I care about is truth. And last time I said that you interjected and didn't let me finish. So I'm saying I care about what is true, right? And what we were told is that we know the Earth is not the center of the universe. It's a definitive scientific fact that the Earth is actually revolving around the sun and that it's shooting through the galaxy and it's ever expanding huge universe with the size that's inconceivable, 46 billion light years and one light year is 5.88 trillion miles. So 5.88 trillion times 46 billion miles for just like insignificant little tiny speck of dust in terms of where we are. We were not told like, oh, that's one of the options. It's called a Copernican principle. It's a philosophy that we think it's more logical that the Earth would have been a special place. We were taught that it's science and that it's definitive and that it had been proven. People are being lied to that is not the case. In fact, the default position is that the Earth is in the center. I think truth is important. I think when you tell a child that there are tiny speck of dust and ever expanding universe of nothingness, that they think it may make sense that they are meaningless and that it's just random. It literally can develop people's worldviews. But regardless of that, truth is important. Would you not agree with that? Absolutely. But I think our purpose and values should not stem from where our physical location is in the universe. I think our purpose and values should stem from our familial relationships, from our family, from our culture, from our ethnicity, from our religion. I'm pretty sure you're a Christian. What's it? So you find a lot of value and purpose from those beliefs. I don't think it should matter. The Earth is the center of the universe or not. And you don't believe in the universe. So you don't believe the universe exists. I believe that what's in the sky exists, Osin. I don't believe in what fairy tells people have made up about it. But that's not what I mean by the universe. That's why I asked you early on what you meant by the word universe. So you didn't answer the question because you're trying to hide it because the base was to be about geocentrism. And then you accused me of being a sophist. I didn't try to hide anything. I answered it five times. I said what we see in the sky. I said the perceivable observable universe. Let's just run through this. Okay, there's no actual evidence that the Earth is moving through space. The default position is that it's stationary. The heliocentric model made a prediction which was that we would measure the Earth moving with interferometry because the Earth has got to be flying through space at 30 kilometers a second if that model is true. What happened when we used interferometry to measure it? It showed the Earth is not moving. That was the most precise form of measurement that existed on Earth and still is to this day. It showed the Earth's not moving. Geocentrism predicts you're not going to measure the Earth moving through space because it's not moving. Heliocentrism predicts you're going to get a friend shift based on 30 kilometers a second. We didn't get it. It matched this geocentrism. But what do they do? They throw out everything they need to in physics, make up fairy tales, talk about space and time being physical and all this stuff to try to say, well, it's just an illusion that the Earth is not moving. Then we fast forward to the 20s and we start making observations when you come. That's when you get Edwin Hubble. We got these huge telescopes and all of a sudden we could see way further into space. Well, the geocentric model says, no matter how far out in the space you look, what you're going to see is that the Earth is in the center of all of it and that everything that exists is going to be moving in relation to the Earth. And then the heliocentric model says, oh, well, this is a tiny speck of dust in an ever-expanding universe. You're going to see things moving every which way. You're going to see things moving all over the place. Redshift here, blue shift here, things moving everywhere. Because where's a tiny speck of dust? And of course, at the time, they said that everything was moving away from the singularity of the Big Bang. And then I'll let you go here. So we got Mikkelson Morley in Matt Geocentrism. And when evidence falsifies a theory, you're supposed to throw it away. But that's not what happens when people are religious. And then we have the next one. Geocentrism says everything in the universe is going to move in relation to the Earth because the Earth is in the center of the entire universe. So no matter how good of a telescope you get, you're just going to see the further you look out in space that we're in the center. Geocentrism said that's not the case. You're going to see things all over the place because no one cared. The Earth is insignificant. It's random. It's not a special place. What did we see? Everything in the universe moves in relation to the Earth. No matter how deep and far out in the space you look, everything moves in relation to the Earth to make it look as if it's in the center of the universe. That matches the geocentric prediction and directly falsifies the heliocentric prediction, right? At the time. So once again, we see another thing. What do we do whenever we have a theory? We do a test and the evidence directly refutes our theory. I know there's a lot of so. All right. We're going to move to CUNY in five minutes, but go ahead and respond to that for now. All right. I don't know how you know it's default to position. I wish we went into that more. So to me, default to position about claim should be. I don't know what the answer is, but you keep making claims about what default position is. It doesn't seem like we're going to have any time to get into that with Q&A. Hubble telescope. So we look out into the Scott stars. It looks like we don't see an end. To me, it means we don't know what the boundaries are if we don't see the end. The response should be, I don't know if there is an end. So it means we don't know how big it is. The response should be, I don't know if we are the center or not. That would be based on philosophical claim. I don't know if we are in the center, the same response. Singularity. I don't believe in a singularity. I don't know what the proper cosmological model is, because something like Stephen Hawking was the... Why are you just ignoring my question, bro? I'm responding to your three claims. What was your question specifically? Because you said a lot. It's like five minutes of shit. Fair enough, but yeah, because I had to just recap it because it's so hard to get to a point in this style of debate for some reason. Then just ask a question. The question is simple. Okay, I laid out what happened, what was predicted and what we saw, and the question was, when we have a theory and it makes a specific prediction, then we do a test and it directly goes against or refutes that theory. What do you do with your theory? I said specifically, if we can't see, if we see stars way out, we don't know where the edge is. The answer is I don't know how big it is. That's not the point. The point is that the evidence directly matches the geocentric model over and over and over. What happens is the other model, just constantly updates to say, oh, well, actually what our model predicts is everything the geocentric model predicts and they had to keep on changing it to say that. So, oh, the measurement of the orbit didn't work. Well, don't worry, that's an illusion. Actually, you think you're moving in a curved path around the summit. Actually, you're free falling in a straight path. Time slows down and everything contracts when you try to measure things. You just can't tell. So it's going to make it look like the earth is stationary and in the center, but it's just an illusion. And then whenever we look out in deep space, it's going to look like the earth's in the center no matter how far we look at all the distant galaxies. But that's just an illusion, actually. Everything's accelerating and expanding away from everywhere at the same time. There is no center. It just creates the illusion that the earth is in the center of the universe. Do you see the reoccurring theme here? That's a limit of our ability to see out into deep space. That doesn't mean that it extends forever. That doesn't mean it doesn't extend forever. Maybe the universe is infinite in size. I don't believe that's the case. Maybe the cosmos is infinite in size if there's multiple universes. I don't know. I don't have the answer. I don't have the answer. I'm not an empiricist. I am a naturalist. I am a rationalist. So I don't accept those type of claims as true. I don't believe in the singularity that is a mathematical artifact anyways. So I don't have the answer. So I don't know if the earth is the center of existence. I to see it is would be a fallacious argument because you know the evidence shows that it that we are in the center of the entire observable universe. All I know it doesn't. Yes, it does. All astronomical object name. Yes, it does because you don't know how far it is. You see you said observable. One second. He was just about to ask a question. You can't see the end. I said observable observable universe. And again, last time I'm going to try to explain this, though, it's not just about, oh, we can only see so far in each direction. So it makes us look like we're in the center. That's not what it's about. It's about the fact that distant galaxies in their recessional velocities move in a specific way. In fact, they complete circuits annually. Everything even in deep space moves in relation to the earth. And you have red shift. Okay. And all of it is in relation to where the earth is. That's why they had to change the model to say, oh, the universe is accelerating and expanding in all directions. And it creates the illusion that the earth is in the center. It is about red shift and blue shift and the motion of galaxies. It isn't about we can only see so far in each direction. All right. Over to you, Ozion. We're running out of time. Now, we don't know how large the universe is. You can only see so far. That is crazy. All right. Without, I think we should move into our Q&A. And we did a poll earlier and I closed it out. We had 785 votes. So I'd like to get 785 votes on our current poll so we can get a gauge of how many people are tuning in that have a different opinion. Maybe some of you have changed your mind listening to the exchange. Make sure if you have the time to check out that poll that I'll try to close out at that point. When you vote in that, that you hit the like button as well. So let's move into the super chat. Thanks, everybody. Can I fix the coffee really fast? It takes like one minute. One minute. Yeah, yeah. Sure thing. It'll take a little bit. It'll take like three minutes. You're fine. I was going to say, actually, this is a good opportunity. I usually do a little moment if anybody wants to have a break. So Ozion, if you need to step out and grab yourself a drink or use the washroom, that's fine. All right. Well, we'll take a moment then and we'll wait for Witsett to grab a coffee to keep himself rolling on. But thanks, everybody, for the super chats. We are going to get into it shortly. It seems like a lot of people have enjoyed the discussion back and forth. So I'm just checking out our live chat and make sure you guys are behaving yourselves. There were a lot of votes and there's a lot of people hanging out to see 1,000 people about hanging out. So yeah, we appreciate all the support and everybody who has taken the time to hit the like button because you're boosting up our stream and the algorithm right now. And I will remind you guys, if you're listening on our podcast forum and you want to participate in the action live, like we are right now, you're going to want to subscribe to our YouTube channel, Modern Databate. And of course, listening on the podcast is a great way to save data. But if you want to interact with our speakers, this is the best way to do it. So make sure you subscribe to Modern Databate on YouTube. Just try to check out this live chat. Ryan, you were very fair today. Thank you. Well, thank you, Herbert. Hubert Rios. Appreciate that, Rio. Let's see. Everybody hit the like button, says Batman. Thank you. And thank you to all the mods in our live chat. We appreciate you guys hanging out, making sure that things are kept civil and that when people check this out post-debate, that they're not subjected to some really vitriolic stuff that you might see in the YouTube live chat. We've seen a few things. Ryan is 100% Canadian. Yeah, born raised. It's hard to escape me. I get in trouble every once in a while. People will be in the comment section after these debates, saying Ryan chit-chatted too much about how he's Canadian. Well, there's a lot of people who aren't Canadian on here. And I always like to poke around and see who we're interacting with all over the world. And maybe this could be a good opportunity. Ozean, you moved recently, I think. Or maybe you just, I think you said you recently updated that you'd moved. But you want to tell everybody where you're at and how you're doing? I just moved to a smaller home because my kids are all moved out and have their own places now. So I don't need a huge giant house anymore. So downsized. Well, that's good. I was going to say, I wish I had a big giant house. I just have a little mini home here. But it's enough to get me by. I got a little corner over here for all my instruments. And that keeps me busy. So yeah, thanks again, everybody. Thanks again, everybody. Like I said, it seems like it's been a really civil live chat majority. And once again, no short thanks to our mods for doing what they do. So make sure you hit the like button if you want to catch these debates live and hit the bell button and the subscribe. And we will be right back with you guys shortly. We're just waiting for Whitsett. I don't want to go to my cut screen. I'm sure we'll get a lot of flattered questions. No worries. I'll answer them. Oh, no. You have your own hat. He has glasses and you have a hat. This is going to be a nightmare, everybody. I'll answer. Why are you biting my why are you biting my gig, bro? No, no, he has a hat. He said he could answer the flat earth questions. And I said, wait, hold on, you have a hat and he's got glasses. We're going to be in trouble. He's biting my gig. Oh, we'd love it though. Honestly, I wanted to debate NASA but the moon landing stuff. But we can get there. That's definitely something that can be on the table. It's pretty fascinating how little people know about this subject. I watched all your videos on it. And why don't you understand it? Well, I do. Dude, I was in when people say, of course, it looks like we're in the center because we can only see so far. And we're looking at it from the earth. That is irrelevant. We're talking about how you have to believe the universe is accelerating and expanding in all directions. To create the illusion we're in the center based on redshift. Oh, that's totally different. I don't have to believe redshift means it's expanding or accelerating. You do if you want to believe that the earth is not in the center of the universe. All right. I'll have to accept the concept of expansion or not. Like, I could believe a ceases correct. I can believe mocking and concepts are correct. Well, I'm glad you guys are excited to get back into it. And hopefully you got everything you need there, Austin, to keep whirling through the super chats. Because there's going to be a lot of them, I think, here. We'll try to keep it tame. LJ asks, ah, your first one's a little bit too pointy there, LJ. But I appreciate you. You can ask it. OK. He says, a man with a big stomach is a man with a small mind. I don't know what that means. Well, I have a big head. So my brain may be stupid, but it is quite large. So I don't know how he quantifies that. But let's carry on. LJ, once again, says, why space travel keeps getting delayed for decades now? It's asking you, Ozean. Yeah, we just landed on the moon a couple of days ago, or a couple of weeks ago now. Like, private company just did, actually, but they were funded by NASA. Are you proud of that? Are you proud of what they said it fell over and they gave you no pictures? Fell over, I know. It's so slick. So this just proves, like, what was it, only like five? No, four of nine? Or is it three of nine? The last missions to the moon were successful with, like, robots. But humans were, like, successful all but one time was Apollo 13. They had to come back. Yeah, it totally checks out, Ozean. But humans can land on the moon because human pilots, navy pilots, especially, are much better than those stupid robots. Okay. All right, let's carry on. See if we can get some more meat here. And thank you, LJ, for all your super chats. I did see earlier that you put quite a few in there, and I'm going to try to get to them as long as my scroller works. LJ asks again, at what height does the vacuum of space start? It depends what you mean by vacuum, just low pressure system. I mean, we consider space to be the carbon line. I think it's, what, 100 kilometers? Any thoughts over there, Austin? No, I don't know what space is, and I don't make claims about what I can independently verify, but I mean, probably pretty high up as in, you know, maybe a few hundred miles or something. I have no idea. Can't go there. All right. Let's carry on. Matt Hightower says from 15, how do you explain comets? They come and go in a predictable way. What are they and where did they come from? Why does their trajectory, typically predictable, revolve around the sun and not the earth? So how do you explain comets? Comets? Comets, yes. Yeah. First of all, they don't, you notice he said, typically do something in relation to the sun and not the earth. That's funny, but they don't always do anything, but they look electrical in nature. And if they were to move in relation to the sun, which is literally electrical in nature as well, then yeah, sure it can move in relation to that system. Why would it not be able to? Why would, if something's moving in relation to the sun, why would that in any way somehow falsify the fact we prove the earth is stationary and in the center of the universe? So why do they do that? Because that's what they do. I don't know exactly even what they are. They look electrical and they move in relation to the sun sometimes. And yeah, we have sporadic meteor showers, and we also have reoccurring things such as comets. And they're all very cyclical and seemingly electric. Go ahead and respond if you'd like their osean. Well, Justice Steelman, like the Tycho Brahe model, they believe it's explained by that model that it's, even though it looks like it's orbiting the sun, it's actually still orbiting the earth. Everything's still orbiting the earth is just like anyways, also going around the sun. The neotyconic model claims that everything is moving around the sun while it moves around the earth. You don't have to believe that. Just one of many different possibilities. Just explaining. So there's explanations under these other cosmological models that like Assis explains in his relational mechanics and stuff like that that I don't accept is true. I wish I'd gone more into that. I made a bunch of clips from Assis's book that he talks about Cavendish and stuff like that. But we need to get into that, unfortunately. But I don't believe that's true. I do believe that like general relativity is true, or is not true necessarily, but it explains our observations pretty well. All right, close us out on this one, Austin. Yeah, there's a kinematic equivalence within your own paradigm. So things can be moving in relation to the sun. Neotyconic system is one of many things. And nothing that we see in the sky, whether that be parallax aberration, moving to the stars, planets, comets, meteors, none of those are exclusive to anything. The earth can be in the center and explain all of those. And in fact, that's how we observed them. All right, thank you so much to both of our speakers for answering those questions and expounding on that. Let's carry on. LJ asked Ozean, the fastest bullets, fastest bullets travel 2000 miles per hour. Rockets travel at 17,500 miles per hour to leave earth. How can humans and the ships remain safe going eight times the speed of flying bullets? Plains can. So I worked on jets that could go like Mach, I don't know, five or something like that. So what hurts you is the acceleration, not the top speed. So they just have to accelerate under so many G-Force and they make suits for like the pilots, at least on the jets and oxygen mass that forces air and then they make these bladders, which now you can see my belly and see how fat I am. So they make these suits that compress their bellies to keep the oxygen from going in their gut and keeps their lungs from collapsing from the G-Forces onto their chests to keep them from passing out and something else. I wasn't, I think they called them AMEs, I'm in the Navy, but the rate that worked on that type of stuff on the aircraft, I was in avionics, AT. But so I worked on different stuff on the aircraft, but they made suits to prevent them from passing out when, especially the, like when they turn really fast, they actually experience higher Gs because they accelerate very quick. Anyways, that's what. All right. Did you have any thoughts there, Austin? You want to move on? I'm good. All right. Let's see here. Oh, let's scroll back on up. And thank you so much for your super chat. We really appreciate you keeping the conversation rolling along. So Joshua Jamie says, how can you say we are in the center of the universe if we haven't mapped the entire universe? Over you, Austin. I said it like five times, man. We are in the center of the observable universe, meaning based on everything that we can observe and know to exist and verify and including every time we get better and better technology to see further and further out into space. It's the same thing every time the earth appears to be in the center of the universe. And the current model says, well, yeah, we're going to appear to be in the center of the universe because everything is expanding away from each other. There is no center. Everywhere looks like it's the center and you'd never be able to tell the difference. It's just an illusion. So, again, this is a semantic weird argument to be like, well, how do you know how big the universe is to know it's in the center? I said the center of the observable universe. Everything that's actually known to exist that is perceived, that is observed, and every time we look further and further and further, keep seeing that we are in the center. And that's because we are, and that's how it works. That's why it's what we observe. Any thoughts over there, Ozzy, before we move on? Yeah, so optics, like, we can't read the... I can't remember what it was. He actually discussed it in your last debate about this. I can't remember what it was. But we can only resolve things that are so tall, depending on the optics of the device that are seeing and the distance of the object away. So, anyways, so we can only see so far with our current technology. James Webb Telescope is getting pretty good. But even with that, we can only see so far. All right, closing thoughts for you, Austin. Again, that doesn't have anything to do with it. It isn't about that we can only see so far in each direction, right? It's about why does everything move in relation to the Earth? That has nothing to do with how far you can see. It's that everything moves in relation to the Earth as if it was in the center. That's why they came up with the idea of redshift expansion, creating the illusion that we are in the center. Why do you think they're expanding away from us? I don't believe that they're expanding away. That's a belief system that doesn't work. There are way too many redshift anomalies since it's already been disproven. So then why did you assert it? That's what your belief claims. All right, let's move on. I never asserted it. Last thoughts, Austin there. So let's move on there, fellas. So sorry. We'll try to see if we got some more here for you, as we go through. But we need about 160 more votes before we'll be at the vote count of our first poll, and then we'll get an accurate result for how our audience has shifted throughout the course of our discussion here. So LJ asks, fun question. What would change your mind to go to the other side? Let's start with you, Eusean, on this one. Change my mind. I'd have to be shown that something supernatural exists. What? Are you serious? You'd have to be shown that something supernatural exists to accept the evidence that the earth is in the center. Yes. That's pretty crazy. Of course, the logical way to do it would be just look at the evidence, figure out what's really going on, and if the earth is in the center, then yeah, it has implications, such as probably what, intelligent agency. But my answer to the question, and the question was, what would need to happen for us to change our mind, right? My answer is, all of the stuff that's directly refuted the claim that the earth orbits would have to be sufficiently explained and demonstrated with test and measurements, etc., like the interferometry detecting sidereal rotation and changing with altitude and changing with the periodicity of the sun and the moon, right? Even the pendulum being affected, what happens in the sky, showing a translation of motion, showing that we can't detect the orbit of the earth and many other things, right? The redshift anomalies, Hubble tension problem, the cosmological constant problem, the dark matter problem, the flatness problem, the horizon problem, all of these are major problems that our paradox won't completely disastrous for current cosmology, with the accepting that the earth is in the center of the universe, like all astronomical observations ever have literally shown us, we don't have any of those problems. We don't have those cosmological problems. So, you would have to fix all those problems, verify some type of claim of gravity, explain away all the anomalies, and then actually address the physical measurements that refuted the claim. Yeah, my worldview doesn't have any of those problems. So, that's cool. All right, let's carry on there, fellas. Thank you. These questions are from LJ, and they're mostly pointed towards you, Ozean. So, LJ says, again, share your screen with real non-CGI footage of space. Is it to you, Ozean? Okay, um... Oh, just your screen. Okay. Non-CGI footage. Here are the flake on the moon. Any input there, Austin? Obviously, I don't... I think it's embarrassing to, like, confidently assert that the Apollo missions were true. I think it's utterly embarrassing, and no disrespect. I just... That's one of those... Sorry. I don't debate that, just like I don't debate 9-11, right? Like, if people think the official story of 9-11 was true, don't know about the dancing Israelis, you know, it's cool, man. I don't... I don't... There are some things I just don't even, you know... Oops. Here, I CGI'd that one. I added stars and holes in the flag and hand of Satan's symbol. It looks more like what maybe you would see if you could go land on a light. Okay. Do you guys want to move on, or do you have any other thoughts there, was he in the closest angle? No, it's all CGI. That's good. We've got them faking it. It's not a big deal. Don't make it weird. We need to have that debate then. Don't make it... You're making a claim. I don't want to debate the moon landing. I'll debate that they fake space. I'll debate... I want to see you defend the stuff I've got NASA doing or defend the... I just had conversations with a couple astronauts and their answers are ridiculous and contradict each other and physically impossible. All right. Q Howard's coming in. Gotcha. We got another question. Let's carry on, fellas. I'm so sorry. Whitsitt, why stationary plane over neo-ti-conic model? Oh, yeah. Because like I said, I just accept the evidence for what it is, right? So the earth is clearly stationary. We were misled about that. And if you go read all the intellectual giants, they'll tell you, oh, yeah, it's a philosophical decision. We can't prove it. In fact, all evidence makes it looks like we're in the center. But then we go tell five-year-older if I allow my daughter to go to public school, which you would have to tell me, they're going to tell her that it's a fact and mislead her. But anyway, so that's the one. So stationary and your question is, well, why a stationary plane and not neo-ti-conic system? Well, first of all, a neo-ti-conic system, it uses all the assumptions of the distances to the planets and the sun and the vacuum of space and the masses and all this stuff. All these stuff that in fact, this can be falsified much less verified. I don't make any of those claims. And then the physical measurements of the surface of the Earth falsify that it's curving, right? Like the apparent displacement of the horizon line of sight, long-distance microwave and radio wave transmission, specular reflections, long-distance observations of silhouettes. It goes on and on and on. And like Air Force pilots observing a two mountains 300 miles away at 28,000 feet altitude and it being completely level with them when it should be five degrees below, five degrees below their horizontal. I mean, I just accept the evidence for what it is. It includes that the Earth's not curving even though it's not what this is about. All right, any other thoughts on the other side before we move on? I think we should talk about the reasons for these beliefs more so than actually what you believe the shape of the Earth is. That could be also an interesting debate. But it seems kind of meta, so let's carry on from here and we'll talk about that some other time. Toby Walker asks, if you haven't already, can you explain Halton's ARP observations of redshift and what they indicate about the motion of the universe? Yeah, Halton ARP pointed out all kinds of problems with redshift. We can just use the example of basically in really lame in terms like the stuff that's closer to Earth has less redshift than the stuff that's further away. And he points this out with all kinds of astronomical observations. Halton ARP, you should definitely check him out. But he points out that the redshift distribution is uneven. If the idea is that everything's expanding it away from each other everywhere, it should be an even distribution. He points out that certain stars that are way closer than allegedly much more distant stars have more redshift or same with certain types of galaxies, certain nebulas, clusters of galaxies and everything like that. So the redshift doesn't work. It doesn't match the claim that it's because everything is moving away from us. And what it means is that since not everything is not moving away from us that the Earth has to be in the stationary. One of the big ones also is Quasar redshift being grossly wrong from what it's supposed to be. But anyway, Halton ARP, check it out. He also wrote seeing red as a follow-up as he was ignored even though he was previously adored. All right, let's carry on then. Let's see here. I was just having some fun. Somebody said that Ringo was a bad drummer and I was just telling them they better step back, get back, get back to where you once belong. Anyways, I'm a Ringo star. I like old music. I can't help it. Oh, that's fine. So let's carry on. Thanks everybody for your super chat, Q Howard. It's your first super chat. We really appreciate that. So welcome to modern day debate and asking questions to our speakers. This is what it's all about. Toby Walker asks a witsit. If you haven't already, can you explain, Halton's observations of redshift and what they indicate about the motion of the universe? Yeah, the universe is not moving. What it is is moving around us, not outside, not accelerating away from us. But you just asked that. I know, I just wanted to make sure we all were on the same page there. Yeah, as I was reading through, I was just like, hold on, hold on. Some of these questions are very similar so I do have to kind of like sift through them to make sure we're not asking the same ones. Ziggy Sigwald, someone please let witsit know that A, we're not moving and B, the universe is not the same as the observable universe, Hale Sagan. Okay, I don't even know what that, well, okay. Cool story, bro. All observations show that the earth's in the center and people deny it because it has philosophical implications. Like that there may be moral accountability. Maybe this place was created. Maybe it requires intelligent agency because if the earth is in the center of the entire universe, like, well, how to get there? But yeah, it is what it is. I didn't say it was the same thing. I just think it's a bad faith dishonest tactic to be like, how do you know how big the universe is when that's not the point that all actual evidence ever observed shows the earth in the center and to respond with. But maybe there's more stuff outside of there where things suddenly change and are different. It's just weird and like, it's desperate. So we should accept the truth for what it is. The earth's in the center. They lie to you. They misled you as if it was scientifically proven that we're not and that is untrue. And either way, whatever you believe, you should accept the truth being that we were misled about it. Well, a lot of people believe the reason why the appeal to the Big Bang cosmology is to appeal to a creator. Like to, they used to believe like in science that it was a static eternal universe. Like if you read like, oh, what's his name? Doesn't matter. So there's like a lot of unnatural philosophy believed the universe was eternal and infinite and stuff like that. Like Einstein quotes Spinoza, that was it. Like the universe was eternal. And like that those types of concepts were true. Like God was like the universe. Like those types of concepts were true. And that's why the like people say like the Catholic Church says, well, Big Bang cosmology is true. Redshift explains that. That's why people like Andrew, Andrea C. He's an atheist. You appeal to his philosophy. He wants to go back to this concept that the universe is static, that it's infinite because he thinks expansionary theory is a creationist story. So I don't know why you'd think it's not, but it doesn't make it special. Since that one was technically for you, Ozean, I got my notes figured out here now. So we shouldn't have any repeat questions. Just try to make sure I delete them as I go. Hango Flamieo says, Ozean, how do we know about unperceivable objects? We can infer them from other observations. All right. Did you want to end there or any thoughts on the other side? Like pain. So pain is not something we can observe directly, but we can infer it from testimonial evidence where people testify to experiencing pain, moral intuitions and stuff. We can infer that moral intuition exists due to surveys and stuff like that, that these types of concepts exist through that. So same thing with space time. So space time is a concept that Einstein talked about. And then the editing experiment in 1919 sort of confirmed that observation through the lensing around the sun. So we can't observe space time directly, but we can measure such observations. So we can't necessarily say space time itself exists, but we can say this concept, we predict these observations. So stuff like that, we can infer from other things. So if you make a prediction with your theory and then it matches it, it verifies it? Yeah, like morality, like moral intuition, right? Oh, I don't change subject. So if you hadn't walked away, if you hadn't walked away, I was talking about pain and morality. Then I spoke about editing the experiment. I'm asking you, is the inverse? Is it like, did I change the topic or did you change the topic? Matt, I asked you a question because I had a follow up. And the question is, is the inverse true? See now it's lost in the ether because you just divert. So I was saying, so if you make predictions and then the evidence or observations match your prediction, that verifies your theory. So yes, I said, so is the inverse true? No. Oh, so when you make, when your theory makes predictions and the evidence goes directly against it, it doesn't falsify your theory. So and that's basically how it works. Oh, and let me say this real fast so people know. Yes, it does. That talking point about Eddington is literally untrue. When people say that Arthur Eddington experiment verified relativity, it literally didn't. There were like 34 plates and 32 of them didn't show anything. The two that supposedly did were damaged and can never be verified, required corrections. Eddington himself wrote and said, this is a major problem for relativity. And then no one else on the entire earth actually observed it. Eddington himself said, this is a major problem for relativity. Now, Popsai articles tell you that it verified relativity. Just a reoccurring thing. We keep being misled here. 15 seconds. Okay. Then let me use the 15 seconds. Someone was saying that I'm lying about talking to astronauts or something. But I hear you jump right on that. Reach for the stars, Austin. Reach for the stars. All right. So that question was for me. Eddington and Dyson was the experiment that was repeated during a 1922 eclipse too. All right. We appreciate the enthusiasm there. And hopefully everybody saw that. Let's see. Mr. Monster asks, with their membership chat, thank you, a member for 26 months. That's awesome. Can you even prove the universe has a center? This was asked earlier. So we may have already gone over this one. But if you have any other thoughts as we went through the other super chats, feel free to get it out, Austin or Osean. That's pretty simple. All astronomical observations show the earth in the center. That's what we see. That's what we observe. That's the default position. It's something that can't be disproven according to even Hubble and Einstein and Hawking. Hawking says you can never disprove that the earth is in the center. That's exactly what it looks like. But I choose not to believe that on grounds of modesty. Okay. So if you're uncomfortable with accepting truth for what it is, that's okay. If you want to infinitely appeal to possibility, so you can deny where you really live, that's okay. Where you really live, that's okay. But I encourage you to accept the beautiful place that you live and what truth is. Truth is important. And when we're being misled about where we live, you should care about that, especially when children are as well. All right. Let's just try to carry on from there. Bitter truth asks Mr. Woodson. Actually, before I ask this, I'll just remind our audience, and we're only 60 votes away from being back to 785 votes, and we'll close the poll and see where we're at for our votes from the beginning, and we'll reveal how many of you voted yes and no from the beginning and at the end. Make sure you're hitting the like button if you're going to vote in the poll, because once again, boosts us up in the algorithm and we appreciate it. Bitter truth says Mr. Woodson, where did you read that Earth is in the center of the universe? Also, show me where did you read Earth is Flat? I need evidence of both. Give me detail. Okay. I might get a little bit loaded up there, but you can go ahead and break it down a bit. I'll try not to be too long here with that. I mean, but, dude, we used interferometry. A measure and test to clean that the Earth was moving and it showed the Earth is not moving, okay? And unlike what Ozean said or refused to answer, if the Earth is stationary, it's in the center of the universe. This is a well-known fact, so if you want to be pedantic and black, but we don't know what could be outside of it, just a weird appeal to possibility, like, okay, it's in the center of the universe that we observe everything that we can see, okay? Everything moves around the Earth or in relation to the Earth. So anyway, that's the answer. We refuted the claim that the Earth is moving with highly precise interferometry measurements. In fact, we detected this ideal rotation and it changes with altitude, changes based on direction, changes with solar motion, what time of the year it is, where the sun and the moon are, et cetera. That's the easiest way to understand that. We falsified the claim the Earth is moving and if the Earth is not moving, it's in the center and that makes perfect sense because when we also look out into space, it shows that the Earth is in the center. When it comes to the flat, you can check my channel. We have all kinds of empirical measurements falsifying the radius, value of the Earth, including line of sight, microwave, radio wave, transmission, specular reflections, long-distance mirror flashes, long-distance observations that require like miles of Earth curvature blocking something, but it's not actually there. Again, the Air Force pilot radar systems, et cetera. So yeah, that's a whole rabbit hole, but we falsified the radius, falsified the claim that it's moving. That's the whole answer for both. All right, I'll give you a chance to respond to Rosie, and if you'd like. No, I don't think he's being honest about the foundations for his beliefs, why he believes the Earth is the center. And I wasn't making any type of fallacious claim. You don't know how large the universe is to make the claim if we are the center of the universe is because you don't believe there's any mass. You don't believe it's actually a physical place. You believe that everything outside of the Earth is fictitious. You believe that this is all that exists. You don't even know if there's anything outside of the boundary of the ice wall you think is there. It could be infinite, flat, plain, eternally existing going. But a weird straw, man. You don't know, but you don't know. So you don't know if it's even the center there. But I don't think anything is better in its fall state. If the foundation is a Bible, you should use that as a foundation for your belief that it's a flat. That's not what it is at all, though. The only reason I even reconsidered the scriptures is because I discovered the truth about the Earth. It's so ridiculous to claim that's why I believe. I never said that there's nothing in space or that it's all fictional and doesn't exist and nothing exists outside of here. That's obviously a straw, man. I just don't believe the stories of men that have been disproven. I encourage everyone to look at it with an open mind, diligently research, and you will find out the Earth does not move in the center of the universe. The scriptures describe an Earth you can walk around, like physically walk around. I'm not going to talk to you about how you don't understand what the scriptures say or check originally. You don't understand them. Okay, what does that have to do with anything anyway? All right, this is the Sondka Foundation for the Beliefs. Let's move on. This is not what we're debating about, so let's just carry on. Let's see. Thanks again, everybody, for your super chats. Tyler432 says, At Ozean, after all these years, not one real pick of Earth, Moon, and Sun from space. What is the excuse today for that? Earth, Moon, and Sun from space? We have several picks, so just because you deny their picks of those places doesn't mean they're not. Any thoughts on the other side there, Austin? He's right. If you just go Google stuff from space, go Google Antarctica from space. We get a bunch of cartoons in CGI. Any honest person would find that highly suspicious that you don't even have a real picture of Antarctica, so why would I believe CGI pictures of distant planets? Last thoughts there, Ozean, before we move on. It depends how close the cameras are. It's resolution of the cameras, so it depends how close it is. You get really close pictures. It's like Mr. B says really close pictures of Antarctica. You get really good detail with their cameras. Especially of the... That's not a sophistry. Especially of a 24-hour sun if he's there on Antarctica. It's not red herring either. Listen, for you at home, you hear what he just tried to do is divert. Go Google. Question was for me. I didn't divert. If you want pictures of Antarctica with high detail, you need to be close. It depends on how far you are away from the observation, how detailed the camera is, which is how much detail you can get of the object. That is not a sophistry. Ryan, can you give me just a second? Well, of course, Ozean. So you guys have been allowed... My question, there's some questions that you can... Ozean, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not turning one second, buddy. Just one second. I don't get to respond to questions that you get at all for some of them. What's it? So don't go tell me I'm lying. Well, I have allowed for some back and forth for some of the questions. And sometimes it's just, you know, one in one, right? So if we want to bounce this back and forth, I feel like that's fair. So go ahead, Austin. Let's try to move it. Let me just clarify what I'm saying here. Like, I think you know, but supposedly, they show us all kinds of continents from space. You can go look at North America from space. You can go look at Africa from space. Supposedly, we see all kinds of land masses from space. Okay. Now go Google Antarctica from space and go to images, and you're going to see nothing but cartoons and blatantly CGI. Okay, last thoughts on the Erosion. This will be the final thoughts on this one. No, no. I got to see if I can find an actual picture of Antarctica from space so I can share it. He says it's blatantly CGI. You want me to share a screen? No, it's the questions for me. I can share a screen. Thank you very much. For everyone at home can go do it. This doesn't look like CGI to me. I don't know. But you think anything from space must be CGI. Wait, you think that's a real picture? I don't know. It's the first one that pulled up. It looks like a real picture to me. Okay. Well, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't even be claimed to be a real picture, but that doesn't look real at all to me. So here, let's see if we can find other picture. Here's another picture. That's clearly CGI. That's not even claimed to be real. See, it says the stock portal Getty images. They're all cartoons, man. You don't find that weird? Here, let's find a real photo. From a... Oh, here's European Space Agency. It's not going to show the whole continent of Antarctica. Look, there you go. Good. So you can see part of it. That doesn't look real either. But even if it was, it's not the continent of Antarctica. So you're making my point, dude. If you Google it, if they're all cartoons. This is the first time I've looked. If I can find one. That's fine, brother. It's all good. I'm not trying to like... Oji or something. I was just telling the audience. That's like high-res stock photos. These are satellite photos. I was just telling the people at home they should check it out. That's a cartoon. That's your claim. You think that's a real picture? It says it's satellite image stock photo. I don't know. Oh, my gosh. No one thinks that's real, bro. That's your claim. Yeah, this is crazy. Do you think all photos from space are fake? No, I'm saying these are blatantly cartoons and CGI. Here is NASA. Antarctica, land, ice village. That is CGI. They're showing like the... Okay. So you can't find any real pictures of Antarctica from space. Well, I want you to spend a minute looking. We go up to the top and click on images. Go on to the top and click on images. Is that way we can see them all at once? Here we go. Ozean, Ozean, why don't you just click on images at the top? That way we can see all of them at once. There's NASA and NOAA. And our satellite image at the Earth set against the background of the stars. That's how you know that's not a real picture. You can't see the stars in any of the pictures they show us from space. On the surface, seas and oceans, blue. Here we go. Dude, this is embarrassing. That is clearly not real. It says the data from a variety of combined data that creates an image. Go up to the top and press images, Ozean. Why won't you just go to the top? Because I need to know what source it comes from. Oh, no, what I'm saying is it's going to make the point, though, right? Like if I need to know what source it comes from. All right. Whatever, man. You're afraid to do it because then the audience will get to see all of them and that they're all cartoons. And that's why you're not doing it. No, because I need to know what source it comes from. Unlike you. OK, then well, can we do this on a different time because you don't have one or can I? You're the one that rebutted the question. Oh, this is embarrassing. Do you want me to share my screen and show the whole audience that they're all cartoons or do you want to just move on? Well, you're just going to show a bunch of random pictures from a Google search and say, look, they're all cartoons. And so just trying to find a satellite. OK, I'll try to do a better search. Satellite. I really do. Can we move on? I think it would be a good idea to move on, but this would be a fun discussion to have some other time. Even a point of discussion about Antarctica itself, since you guys always seem to want to talk about Antarctica. And it's a hot topic for you two. So why don't we reserve this discussion for another day? Early as satellite photo images in Antarctica reveals. That's not a picture. Early, early as satellite images of Antarctica reveal highs and lows for sea ice. Yeah, I actually think it's awesome that you're doing this. 1964. The audience can see all this, right? Because it says it's from the Ndimbus satellites are revealing new information. Wow, yeah, man, for sure. You're making my point for me by showing the audience. And that's all I was trying to say is, you know, if people just kind of believe we go to space all the time, you would think logically, well, yeah, of course, we have pictures from Antarctica. We're in space. No, actually, go look it up. They're all cartoons. They're all CGI. It's ridiculous. And you'll notice that most of the people that believe in it are trying to make fun of it. Well, this is like. I've never even looked into it. This is looking for specific data. So it's not like doing a color resolution. You don't have any real pictures of Antarctica from space. That's cool. All right, let's end the screen share. We're going to move on. Thank you so much. Let's see here. Thank you for that. All right, so I just closed the poll. We were a little bit over the vote count, but we should still have a pretty accurate result. So the first poll, we had 785 votes of votes. The second one, we had 791 votes. So the question was, is the Earth the center of the universe? So for yes on the first vote early in the debate, we had 47 voted yes. 43% voted no. And undecided people, 9%. Second poll we put up, we had 48% said yes. So we had an increase of 1%. We had 43% said no. So we had the same percent on no. And 7% voted on unsure. So it's a decrease to the unsure and the yes increased by 1%. So take that for what you will. This is a neutral platform, and we do these polls for the fun of it. So let's carry on, everybody. And thank you, everybody, in our live chat, who participated in our poll and helped us get those results. We'll put up one more poll before the end and carry on with our super chats. So Bitter Truth asks, What's it? What is expanding universe equation? I don't know. I know I don't care what it is, right? You have the cosmological constant, which is supposedly the energy that causes the Hubble constant. And that's just fake news, right? Like, I don't see how me not knowing the equation off the top of my head somehow means that it is expanding. And then if Ozean looks it up right now and pretend he knows it doesn't change anything either. So like, accelerative expansion of the universe is a ridiculous claim. You need a lot of energy to try to even theoretically make that happen. It's called dark energy, right? The cosmological constant. And it's called the cosmological constant crisis because no one can come up with this energy. We saw vacuum energy on the Earth, tried to assume it'd be in space. It was off by 10 to the 120th power, wasn't even close. You have to claim that space is expanding four to eight times faster than the speed of light with an energy source that no one can define or find. It's nowhere to be seen, but it has to be there. It's just ridiculous. Oh, and then when you make your different forms of measurements of this assumed expansion, you have what's called the Hubble tension problem because the measurements don't match up. They don't even match up. They show that it would be expanding at different rates. It's called the Hubble tension problem. So, yeah, I mean, it's a ridiculous claim. Any thoughts on the other side? Um, no, I didn't appeal to expansion. So, like, I just doubt it. But the mainstream model does. Yeah, so, but that's science. So I'm not appealing to science for my argument. I asked you what the center of the universe was and you just said what we can observe. So that's just appealing argument for ignorance. So you're just saying, all we can observe is this. We don't know what's beyond that. So how do you know what the center is? So it could be here. Okay, this is what it is. It's V equals h times R. V represents the galaxy's recessional velocity. R, it's distance away from the earth. And h is the constant of portionality called Hubble's constant. So that's the part that I didn't completely remember was, like, exactly what the distance is. But I guess it's obviously just a radius in relation to whatever point it is. I guess that, you know, even though it's moving at a second, you do the equation. Oh, yeah. Okay, cool. So there, I did not know that off the top of my head and it doesn't even change anything. Neither. All right. It's weird though. I would have looked it up if I wanted to. I did. It was like, I got you, you know. Oh, never mind. Magic, magic energy is making the universe. Did you see my debate with Caleb? I tried to save him. They asked him, like, the first derivative of 3x squared is, I said, don't answer that, dude. It's a calculus question. He answered 81. It's like, you know, it's, you know, it's pretty bad when people are, like, so thirsty right now to get a gatch on me that now they're all talking about how stupid I am because I didn't know an equation off the top of my head. It's pretty bad. Pretty bad, guys. I'm not a cosmologist or a physicist. Like, I have a business degree. I went to law school. I went to graduate school for history. Like, come on. Like, I'd be like, yeah, I got him. Told you. I told you he was stupid. Do you want to do a debate on flat earth? I'm like, I wrote a book on philosophy of naturalism and shit. Like, do you want to be on flat earth? Okay, we'll move into that sometime. You know, there's definitely, I think, opportunity for that down the road. But let's carry on. I opened up a new poll. It's just a fun poll on whether you hit the like button. If we can pass 500 likes for the stream, then I'll open up who's your preferential speaker for this debate. We'll open a catty one, okay? And, you know, have a bad one. Let's see here. Next question. Joshua Jamie says, why are you assuming the earth is not moving and it must be the center of the universe? And saying I don't know where the center is doesn't mean I don't think there is one. You asking me? I think that's me. Because I'm the one that said I don't know. But he's directing it at me. He's defending you saying one thing doesn't mean the other. But you did say, right, that there wasn't a center, right? Yeah, I said, I don't know what the center is. Or you said that even saying the universe has a center is incoherent. Probably incoherent unless you can measure the universe here. Yeah. But his question is asking me, why do I think the earth is stationary? Well, first of all, let's just use our brains for a second. That is the default. We don't feel it. We see everything in the sky move. We see sidereal rotation. The stars move. We see the sun move. We see a cycle about that. We look out in the space. We see everything moving in relation to the earth. So that's the default, okay? But you could say, well, the earth is so big, it moves at such a rate that you wouldn't feel it. It would make the sky look like it's moving. We all know that, okay? But the point is that it's the default. Then we take interferometry measurements that directly falsified the claim that the earth is orbiting. In fact, it does have a friend shift that is consistent and it changes with altitude, time of the year, etc. Even Einstein said if that's not instrumental error, everything is everything's wrong. Everything's refuted. Well, it's been verified in modern times, even with a radio wave, millimeter wave propagation test, many different tests. Yeah, we falsified that the claim that the earth is moving, even though the default is that it's stationary. So why do I think that? Because that's just objectively what it is and it's been proven. And what that means is that the earth is in the center, the cosmos. And so, yeah, I agree that you may not know where the center is or if there is a center in your paradigm, but that's because you made up a story. You made up a story. They explain away the evidence, but I encourage you to reconsider, man, it's going to be okay if you're special. It's not going to be that bad. All right, let's give those you a chance to respond if he has anything to say and we'll let you close out. Yeah, the blue marble picture shows the Antarctica, not all of it, of course, as you know. But anyways, I think we can... Admittedly, not real. I think we can be special without presuming a physical, locale, as central. Even if you believe in God, I don't think God believes requires that there be a center of reality. So I believe specialness can come from our familiar relationships, our culture, our identity, and stuff like that. Let's carry on there. Not everybody has to hear my... All right, even though I can do it with my mouth. Toby Walker says, How does nothing expand into something without violating the first law thermodynamics? Will you take your time kind of answering that I'll be right back? Sure thing. Damn it. I was just going to say, raw man argument. So that's a philosophical question. I will take your time to explain that. So the question really is, why does something exist rather than nothing? So that's really a philosophical question. So right now, there's a form of something that exists. So because there's a form that something exists now, there must have been a potential for this form of something existing right now. So the potential for this form of something existing meant there was a free... There was a potential for which it exists previously. So why does something exist at all? It means there was a potential for its existing to exist. Now, all examples of causation I have ever experienced in all of my life, 51 years of living on this beautiful, wonderful planet of existence that we all live on, all of us, all of us humans that live on, has been natural. As far as we know, they've all been physical. It seems like as far as we know that intentionality arises from brains. All minds have correlations. All intentionality have correlations to brains, physical brains, natural things. So it doesn't look like existence has to have intentionality behind existing. So it seems like the fact we exist doesn't require intentionality. So my belief, the reason why anything exists at all is because something previously existed. The potentiality for anything existing at all existed. So does that mean there's a turtle all the way back? Maybe. Does it mean there was some eternal thing that a causally caused this thing that we all experienced to exist? Exist? Maybe. So you could say, well, infinite causal chain of things is a sort of incoherent concept. Well, that could be true, but I could believe in like a tenseless theory of time, which means no moment in time has any preference. Like past, present, future all have ontological equal claims. Like there's no special preference on today, tomorrow, or the future. So in that concept of time, the whole set of past forms of existence caused today to happen. We have another question for you though. They're Ozean and we'll just carry on. What's it has a little reprieve there? Ziggy Sigwal from 666 says, and he's triggered me again. It's the Iron Maiden, right? You know, instantly I'm like, I got to listen to that song. Il Sagan. He's going to say it, you know, he will. But yeah, that's a great album. Someone please tell Whitsit we don't praise Newton or Kepler for their beliefs, but for what they got right also feels a bit dishonest to expect for people to get 100% things right. We yet haven't discovered Il Sagan. So we'll let you respond to some of that there Ozean. If you got thoughts. Newton and Kepler were geniuses, like especially for his work in calculus for Newton, for his work in understanding like laws of motion. I do not understand Newtonian physics, like I understand like the general concepts of laws of motion, the general concepts of the laws of planetary motions, but the physics that grounded has any, have you opened, Whitsit have you opened up like Newtonian physics, like the actual books? Like they're like, there's like hundreds of pages, like all the different principles that he, like they're right. Like I, the math involved, like, I don't know. Like it's, people like see like Einsteinian physics are complicated. I couldn't get through Newtonian physics. Like I would need to go to, but why would I learn Newtonian physics when the current paradigm is Einsteinian physics? Like, you know, I was just saying. The craziest part about all that though is that you can actually derive Kepler's laws from Newton. Well, yeah. Which is, so you can do it in reverse, which is a kinematic derivation and shows that all they did was look at the periodicity of everything, like the cycles it has, and then reverse engineered it, which is pretty telling. And then this is the part, I have not, I'm going to clean out, I never read like the entire Principia or anything like that. But Newton point blank says like, you know, the earth could be in the center if there was a force, a kind of gravitation that was the equal and opposite reaction. And then he goes on. That's the final thing he writes in this whole Principia. He writes all this stuff. And then he says, well, the earth could be in the center. And then he writes subsequent things that say stuff like, well, I can't even understand gravity, right? Like that would be insane if that actually exists. And it would have to be a direct act of God. And there would have to be some type of medium that everything is in, because everything like for it to be instant, because he doesn't have a time variable on his equation, right? And there would have to be a medium touching both the bodies at the same time for there to be that. Then he talks about an ether and how if it was like really dense, like liquid silver, but with no viscosity, then maybe things could move perpetually for 10,000 years and all this stuff. So yeah, Newton is kind of misunderstood. He was really big in alchemy, really big into God, really big into metaphysics. And wasn't even like claiming he knew that the earth moved around the sun or anything. Like he said the earth can be in the center, so. Can you agree he was a genius? Yeah, yeah. If the story of Newton is true, he was a genius. He discovered Newtonian gravity and calculus. He created calculus by 22. They, like calculus was created by two people concurrently. Like there was a big fight like between two people who created it first. It's really. I'm suspicious of the story. Let's carry on. We got lots of super chats and I will apologize in advance. I can hear it outside right now. There is a vicious rainstorm pounding on my roof. So if we cut out for any reason, I'm going to apologize in advance because it's just pounding on my roof right now. And I'm a little concerned. Matt Hightower says, please for once tell me what flat earthers think. They are seeing in the night sky. What are all those lights? Please offer a detailed explanation as to what we are seeing. Could be sonaluminescence could literally just be vibratory displacement and cyber fluid medium that would create what we see. And then everything expected to look kind of spherical because if I have a source of light and it has a radius of light, right? How far it can go in all directions and it'll look like a sphere. It's like you can look down a railroad track to a train with rectangular headlights and it'll look like the light is a circle, right? That's just how light works. But yeah, it could literally just be vibration. Some type of vibration. And what it is that's vibrating, I don't know. And it would be ignorant to make up stories and spend all kinds of time and energy and money in like coming up with different aspects of that story if it's just baselessly made up. I think that that's the craziest part of the whole thing is that people have been told so many claims about space even though it's constantly changing. It's made up. It gets falsified. They feel like they need a replacement for it. And you know, anyway. So yeah, what I think is it's in a torus field. The redshift is because there's electromagnetic retardation, meaning that there's actually a shift that happens because there's a centrifugal divergent motion right out from the center around. That's expected to see some type of redshift. Everything's intrinsically electromagnetic. Galaxies look just like the center of magnetic fields with the spiral. So yeah, everything's electromagnetic. Seems like there's a fluid medium. Things are much more local, much closer and maybe sun luminescence is the cause of the stars. But everything is for sure electric. Current model is a complete joke. Let's give you another one there. What's it where you had to where you're gone? What's it? What did Edwin Hubble change about astronomy and feel free to respond after Ocean? Yeah, so he he's the one that he introduced expansion, which is kind of what I was trying to give into earlier, which was that we ended up getting these telescopes that were much more advanced. And everyone was kind of theorizing about what was going on. But at the time, everyone thought that there was like a singularity. Everything expanded from there, which how does everything expand, including space, from a singularity? What's it expanding into if there is no space? Or space is the antecedent of expanding. But anyway, they thought that when we get these really big telescopes and we look out there, I showed a picture of it in my presentation, then we're going to see everything moving in different directions because there was a singularity way over there. We're tucked away in a corner way over here. So it should just show that we're insignificant. Like we're swimming in a sea of stuff that doesn't care about us. But what they did when they looked out further is they saw that actually everything's moving in relation to us, right? And predominantly the recessional velocities of being proportionate to their distance from the earth. And that's not what was expected. So what he did was say, OK, well, to explain this, you say that the redshift is actually velocity shifts, that that there's actually kind of like a Doppler effect that space is expanding out from us. And so he's the one that introduced the idea that everything's expanding away from every other point. And it makes it look like the Earth's in the center, even though it's an illusion because it was unexpected. They had to revise the model. So that is actually what happened. Ozean, what do you think? Do you agree that's accurate? As far as I know, yeah, I'm not an expert with Hubble. That's what I've heard. Did you know he also said that he called a special position like the Earth in the center? He said the Earth being in a central position akin to ancient civilizations can never be disproven. He said, but we disregard that possibility because of the horror of a unique position. And he's talking about the implications on many of his other theories and contexts as well. But he refers to it as intolerable and horrific. He says that the central position can't actually be feuded. And then they come up with an idea to say, oh, it's all an illusion that we're in the center. And it sounds kind of like a religion. Now, I do have a rebuttal to that. Because the ancient religions, the ancient cultures at the time believed that their concept of world was where they lived. So they thought it was flat where they lived. A lot of them believed the heavens were the skies above them. The underworld or the pillars either was something they floated upon above the waters or were pillars like a house foundation that kept them up from sinking below them. But they didn't believe the concept of world was a local thing. And a lot of them, they had maps and stuff of their world. So worldview to them was like their cosmology, their gods, their life cycles and stuff like that. It wasn't. So when we, so like Hubble, when he said something like that, sort of like a presentism view, his concept of world was different. So he's looking at it from a presentism view, looking back. So his idea of world in the present time was much different from what the ancient concept of world was. So he should be looking at it with their concept of world was in ancient time, which is much different than today. If you go to my channel Matters Now, it is the point. If you go back to my channel Matters Now, I spent the last week talking about ancient civilizations and their worldviews in a little bit of detail. So real fast. Someone said, wait, if miss quote Hubble, like, okay, here's a direct quote. It's on my X. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outward symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favored position, of course, is intolerable. Moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape, and that is Edwin Hubble, 1937, an observational approach to cosmology, page 46. Oh, no, I didn't miss quote him. All right, let's move on from there. And thank you so much, guys, for expounding on that and giving me a chance to have a wash and break myself. Dominic says, Osean, belief is the enemy of knowing. Substitutes, faith for evidence. What would it take for you to question your belief in heliocentrism, Austin thoughts? Yeah, I was going to say they're trying to bounce it themselves. But yeah, they're asking you, belief is the enemy of knowledge. Substitutes, faith for evidence. There's not a lot of punctuation here, I'm sorry. What would it take for you to question your belief in heliocentrism? I think we got it there. Well, obviously he doesn't know the definition of knowledge. Knowledge is a justified true belief. So if you reject belief, you reject all claims to knowledge because all claims to knowledge are claims to belief. So a justified true belief is a belief that, so something you accept is true that is justified through some type of empirical justification. But all empirical justifications are based on our observations of the external world. Hopefully you have some type of methodology of proving that, like methodological naturalism, such as scientific method or something like that, which is my preferred empiricism. But that is based upon not deduction, but induction, which is the best explanation. It doesn't lead us to proofs. Science doesn't leave us to proofs. Deduction would leave us to proofs. So you can't necessarily say it's knowledge. You could say it's pragmatic knowledge, which is fine. So a rational belief is something that is justified. So I believe that my beliefs are justified. So whether they're true or not, whether they exist as some referent externally or not, we can have a debate about. Do I believe most of our beliefs are true? Yes. So can we have a debate about them? Absolutely. So what can vis be that the earth is flat? Show me a picture of the earth. All right, man. Hey, everyone go smash the like button. Yeah. We're just going to all sit here and stare at you. Everybody smash the like button while we stare. Let's do it. Yeah. We're all going to sit here. Which eye off face with it? We're going to sit here and not talk until you smash the like button. Oh, man. Well, if we get to 500, like I said, we'll open up a poll for who was your favorite speaker tonight. Right now we just have a did you hit the like button poll up because over 700 people apparently can vote in our poll, but you can't hit that like button. It's totally free to hit the like button. It doesn't do anything to you. In fact, it brings you great joy. Trust me. Try it out just once. Let's carry on there, guys. And thank you, Witsit, for that. Let's see. I am Oz and Witt explain Airee's failure. How much tilt would be required to see the star based on Helio versus Geocentric predictions? Lastly, what were the results? Let's start with you. I'm not good with Airee's failure. So my brother, you know it better than I did with it. It's like an old test, like with the tubes pointing up to try to see light through it. Is that correct? Yeah, basically you have a tube tilted with water in it. And the angles are different based on the legend motion of the earth. You should see basically the light be displaced once it enters the water. If the earth is moving and it should it should displace. And then, you know, basically going to the side of the telescope, what they saw was that it didn't do that. And the only slight displacement went the opposite direction. It is a direct refutation of the claim that the earth is moving. The fact that it displaced at all and went the opposite direction is a major problem for to this day. It was actually Airee's success, right? But I've never heard a rebuttal, by the way. In fact, what you'll find out is all the people that talk about the globe earth and all this, they don't have a rebuttal. Like none of them even know what to say back at that. None of them do. And yeah, so like just to make sure everyone understands, the idea is you're on the earth, the earth is moving. And then you have a telescope filled with water and you look at the star come through the water, right? As it gets into the water, obviously that's a different medium. So then the speed of light changes in relation to that medium. So what should happen as you're moving, the star should be displaced at an angle based on your movement. It should go into the side of the telescope. There's a predicted amount that should happen based on the movement of the earth. And then what's actually observed is that there's only a slight displacement and it goes the opposite direction, from my understanding. It's been a while since I looked at it. Obviously that's a major, that's a major. I thought I had to deal with the ether though, to the stationary ether that he expected the change in the light due to the stationary ether. He didn't get that predicted measurement. Yeah, but the ether would just be like, it was just assumed to be this absolute in which was measured against. The fact that there was a displacement actually with the opposite way of the prediction, not only shows the earth not moving, but also shows that there is an ether and that there's a drift within it. Well, there could be an ether drift, but it falsified a stationary ether. But it wasn't a very good test, right? So the proof, that's why the Mickelson-Morley experiment was a much better test to falsify the stationary ether. All right, let's carry on guys. We actually are only 80 votes away from me changing the poll over to preferential speaker poll. And I'll just say to make it fun, whoever wins the preferential speaker poll, I'll give an extra minute for the closing statement because that's fun and lets the audience interact. Wait until they'll get it. Let's the audience interact with the speakers, but we'll see what happens, Ozean. We'll just wait. Free Free Palestine asks, how do you confirm the distance between us and Polaris 432 light years ago and why not one day light ago? Please answer CGI, globe lovers and no more. Is it parallax or whatever? How did they know it like in the past? Like they measure it over time and they like do you use math to backtrack to see what it would have been however many years ago in the past? Any other thoughts on the other side? I'm not sure how to push that one along. I missed it. How do they know how far Polaris is? I don't know, they changed all the time, they have no idea. Okay, Bob asks, question for both. Why come it be the way it do? Thanks, Bob. I don't know if we can really get anything out of that. Why come it be the way it do? Bob, I'm sorry. I don't think there's a whole lot we can get out of that. It's a fun question in the way you worded it, but I don't think we have a whole lot of meat to dig in there. If you want to put something in the live chat, Bob, maybe he's just asking why is it, let me give you the benefit of the doubt here, Bob. Why is it that the earth is in the center? Why come it be the way it do? I don't know. I'm trying to help you, Bob. Bob, put it in the live chat. I don't want to fill in the blanks here. Bitter truth says, what's it? We read that one. Jeff asked, Austin, what college gave you a degree? It's not really relevant, but if you want to talk about any experience you've had, you can go ahead and take that moment. I got an athletic and academic scholarship to a private university and then dropped out of college. Never went to class. I just partied a lot and played football, so I don't have a college degree, which I'm actually thankful for now. Less debt, less indoctrination. It was a pretty good private university. It gave me a full ride. I just threw it away. I didn't just partied and tried to. What position? Lot of girls. Lot receiver slash tight end. How was the tightest end? How was the tightest end on my team, too? You're small for a tight end. I know. I was slot receiver. They tried to folk me up and tell me to maybe play tight end so I could get in early as a freshman. But yeah, I was slot receiver. Because we did meet at the bacon floor. We did. Yeah, you're really tall. Yeah. I enjoyed meeting both of you. I think Andrew Wilson was a little intimidated by me. He was funny. Let's not go down what happened. I wanted to be Andrew. Let's say you're in fun. I know. But honestly, yeah, I enjoyed meeting both of you. When it came to my schooling, just as a fun point, I didn't get very far because I was very loud and I just wanted to play guitar. Only the music teachers liked me. I just took all those government tests and they gave me grades. Oh, well, there you go. Free free Palestine. Let's say let's move on to our next question. Actually, you got two here. Free free Palestine asks, how do you confirm? Oh, that's the first one. So, so, no, so no luminance. I think that's on a luminescence. So no luminescence. So no luminescence star in a jar scientific experiment. There's a water above the permanent. Therefore, stars are underwater. Vibrations of love for flat earth. Oh, yeah. That's what I was talking about earlier. There's a star called a star in a jar. I mean, there's a there's a test called star in a jar. It's about sonaluminescence. You just introduce sound to water. And what happens is it creates this little bubble that like implodes in on itself and then creates light. It looks just like a star. It's actually very cool. You've never seen it. So just propose as a possible explanation of what could be happening. Literally just vibration in a fluid medium would create what we receive to be stars. So I shared a screen if you want to, I don't know, do the matter. Well, if it's if it's on point, I have to respond. Oh, how did I ensure I want to stop? Sure. Sure. You want to stop? I'll share that. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. It doesn't matter. Okay. It's pretty cool. I wish I could just pull it to my thing. I'll do that. I can't do it. Never mind. Oh, okay. It looks pretty cool. So, all right. Did you want to pull it up and respond to Whitsitt? Or did you want to carry on? No, no, no. No, he was supporting what I'm saying. Just look the look up star star in a jar if you've never heard of it. Most people have. It's pretty cool. All right. Let's carry on free, free Palestine. Rockets can't get high enough because of the Fermanent and astronauts are only going to land on Epstein Island. Oh my, save our children. They say free, free Palestine. I heard that's flat. Well, thanks for that. Yeah, man. That's like a claim to me. Yeah. I mean, free Palestine, man. All this is what's up with this genocide, man. Oh, man. All right. Nathan. Oh, wait. Did you guys see? I heard a conspiracy. I want to know. Ozin, have you heard this? Supposedly, they're discontinuing P1000, one of the reasons is that they have some type of agreement with NASA, like a private exclusive contract or something. And they're now someone said that it's like a, it's like a, it's like a parameter of the DIL or something. I don't know about that, but that they discontinue the P1000, which I don't even know what that means. But yeah, Nikon's discontinuing the P1000, which is the camera that all the Flat Earthers use. Because it has like one of the most, the best commercial optical zooms. Optic. Yeah. Oh, you have one nice. Yeah. And something about NASA. Nice, bro. I only have a 900, but yeah. Anyway, I thought that was crazy. Like NASA's, NASA is pretty ironic, even if it's just like hilarious, like NASA signs a DIL with Nikon P or Nikon and they're discontinuing the P1000, and supposedly as part of the DIL. I don't know. I think that's, I don't know how true that is. Disclaimer. I just heard it word of mouth. I just think it sounds great. All right, let's carry on. They'll probably come out with a better one. I don't know. Let's see. Nathan Bishop asks, Whitsitt doesn't get it. He's coming right for you, Whitsitt. And I know you can handle it. You should totally go do another standup comedy in front of Mount Rushmore. I'm not sure what that's about Whitsitt, but Nathan Bishop. I got arrested for pre-speech and people are super lame and think it was like cool or something that I got arrested for pre-speech. No, it wasn't cool. All right. I'm not sure what that was about, though. But I'm sorry if that was not a great time. But yeah, let me hear that in the chat. Okay, I didn't want to, I didn't want to stir up bad. No, people should go, people should go read my motion to dismiss for facial invalidity. Because it's, it's like a really good motion. You should read it. Did you win? Did you win the motion? No, no, but like the judge didn't even really rebut the arguments and then everything the government said, you knocked it down. The judge was like, wrong. He's right. He's right. Like they, they told, they made it awful. And she's like, no, he refuted that here and he showed you, you were wrong here and all this stuff. But then she just said, what? I don't, I'm not going to do it, which I mean, I was asking her to change the law. I wasn't like trying to fight to be innocent because I thought like, oh, it's just a fine. I tried to change the law instead of like fight my guilt, right? Because I think it's a free speech violation law. So, all right, never I tried. I'm placing manner. Yeah, yeah. Sorry there, Ozean. Let's carry on. We are more than halfway now. So thank you once again to our speakers for being great sports and answering all these questions. Even some of the more pointed juicy ones. Thanks guys. Bitter truth asks once again about your educational background. I'm sorry, bitter truth. We had a question about it. I think we got the most out of it. So I'm sorry we're going to carry on and I will ask your next question just shortly. Siggy Sigwald asks, what's it not understanding Michaelson Morley, an experiment done in 1887, and then cherry picking a quote, while ignoring their satellites in orbit right now and is streaming publicly available data every few minutes and gets old really fast. That's why you're here spending money to talk about how you're watching. So whatever. I mean, this is what I do think is funny is what gets old really fast is that you guys all have like a script that you say and you just repeat it no matter what. There's literally nothing I can say if I pull up the papers and read it on context and show you exactly what it says and we go through the entire Michaelson Morley experiment. No matter what you will claim falsely that I cherry picked the quotes and that I misunderstand Michaelson Morley. But no, I completely understand it. Okay. And it's just the fact that there was a predicted friendship value. We did not see that. They threw a falsified Newtonian gravity. You had to claim that Earth was freefalling in a linear orbit. That time expanded slows down and that matter contracts. You just can't tell. This is all just a fact. So I think it's weird that people lie about that, to be honest. That's what's actually weird. And even, yeah, I don't have to believe fairy tales about space, even if there were satellites in orbit. They use geocentric equations and physics. So. All right. Thanks a ton, brother. Oh, you had a question there. Did you want to interjection? Geodesic orbit, close enough. No, geocentric. Geodesic. But I'm saying they use geocentric physics in equations. Yeah, you can see it's a linear orbit, but it's a geodesic. Well, yeah. Oh, you're not. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's both. Right. Well, it's because... Geodesic is linear in your reference frame. Yeah. All right. But it's like the shortest path takes the least amount of energy. You're also freefalling, so you're going straight. In your reference. Sort of. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Bitter truth is coming in. I argue with people. It's a philosophical... Anyways, I argue with people about it all the time. Yeah. Relativity is just philosophical magic. All right. Well, thank you, fellas. Bitter truth asks, Whitzit, who says Earth is stationary Earth is orbiting Sun, and if not rotating Earth, some of the areas will be dark forever. It's not a lot of punctuation here. Sorry, bitter truth. No idea what that said. He's saying that on a flat Earth that the Sun wouldn't... Like some places would have to be dark 24-7. Yeah. All right. Let me try to put some... 365. ...faces here on the right syllables, okay? Who says Earth is stationary Earth and is orbiting the Sun, and if it's not rotating Earth, some of the areas will be dark forever. I tried to do it justice, but that's the best I got. Obviously, if he's actually... Yeah, like the Earth moving around the Sun, or some moving around the Earth, there's a kinematic equivalent even within the mainstream model. And if you are talking about flat Earth, which he didn't mention and what this is about anyway, but obviously there's light attenuation. There's an extinction point or limit of light relative to the medium, specifically the turbidity that's turbulent and density of that medium. There's a radius of light, especially with a local light source, and it's moving. Now, it doesn't sound like he's talking about that. I kind of disagree with Ozin's interpretation. Sounds like he's just saying something I don't understand or isn't coherent, which is that if the Earth is moving around the Sun or vice versa, that somehow the Sun's moving around the Earth that there would be areas that are dark forever. But he may be... I don't know. I couldn't tell you. So there you go. I tried to say there's a kinematic equivalence. The Sun can just move around the Earth and that's what the evidence shows us that it does. It changes its position throughout the year. You think like its extinguishes at a certain point, you don't believe in the inverse square law of light? Well, there's also... Yeah, yeah. Well, inverse square law of light is cool, but there's also an attenuation rate of light and it gets to where there's no resolvable information. Right? Just like we have... You have headlights and then you have fog lights. Right? So when it's foggy outside, how come I can see the car with fog lights but I can't see the car with just normal headlights? Because the intensity of the light in relation to the medium, because the regular headlights have... They attenuate in the medium, right? They absorb and then they have an extinction limit. All right. Oh, okay. We'll let you use that. That's okay. Are you sure? Okay. Let's carry on and I'll just remind everybody in the live chat we are only 35 lights away and we will open up the poll which will allow you to vote for your favorite speaker and give them an extra minute on the floor to close their thoughts, so if they'd so desire. Let's see. Toby Walker says, What's it? I heard a guy named Wang measured linear motion using the speed of light. Can you explain what that means for measurements of the Earth's motion? You had your hand up there, Ozean. Is there something you want to say? Oh, no. Nothing. Okay. What's it? So if you want to repeat that, I can or if you want to go ahead. I got it. Okay. Go ahead. Yeah. So he's talking about Wang. So it's a linearized sag neck effect and he detects linear motion with interferometer. I'm guessing that Ozean was raising this hand because they have a scripted answer to say back to that which is that it's just relative motion but they don't fully understand it. So like actually people have tried to explain it from the heliocentric paradigm or from relativeivities paradigm but they admit that they really can without invoking absolute space and then changing the position of the observer and then creating a cylindric, a cylinder coordinate system. However, cindrylic, I don't even know. So yeah, that's not, that doesn't work because relativity says that space is not absolutely fixed. Now, this is what he's asking though. He's saying like what does that mean based on the model? Well, like we said earlier, right? The Earth's orbit according to Einstein is the Earth free falling in a straight path and Ozean said a geodesic, well, he calls it in his paper curve linear, curve linear, right? Like literally calls it linear because it free falls in a straight path. So the point is, they said, well, you can't detect the orbit of the Earth because Mickelson morally didn't because it's moving in a straight path, free falling in a straight path. So there's no deviation or the light to measure. Well, now we've proven that you actually can detect and measure linear motion with interferometry which now directly refutes even the ad hoc excuse that was come up with to explain away the evidence that refuted the Earth is moving. So last thing I'll say to recap it, they claim the Earth, they thought the Earth was moving, measurement showed it wasn't moving, came up with an excuse to say why you can't measure it even though it's moving. That excuse, even though just made up has also been refuted with the detection of linear motion with interferometry. All right. James Brown spent $7.77 to mirror Siggi and said to shut up Siggi. So he's coming after Siggi who's another person in our live chat. So you spent money to say that and it's funny. Numerology 777 is the number of gods. 666 is the number of man. I feel like I love 7s. I was going to say James Brown is not feeling good, I guess, tonight. Numerology 137 is her... 139 is the number of man. Anyway, it doesn't matter. Let's carry on. Siggi Sigwold and don't mind them Siggi. We appreciate all of your super chats including the last one. That's always fun. It seems like you guys had quarterback and forth in the live chat. So once again, appreciate the mods keeping our live chat. Siggi Sigwold asked, so all of this because Whitsit couldn't develop, that's kind of rude. He said self-esteem is an irregular human being. I know you can handle it, but it's just rude. I'm sorry. There's nothing there for us to sink our teeth into. So I read... I didn't really hear what he said. That's good because it really doesn't add to anything. I love whoever said that. I love you, man. Everything's going to be okay. No hard feelings. Who's insulting you? Mr. Monster. I love him. It says, I believe I can see the sun and the planets. They must be real. Furthermore, I can see the other planets are going around the sun. Therefore, dot, dot, dot. I think they're making, it seems like they're making a mockery. Maybe you should put this in quotations, but it seems like they're saying, I believe I can see the sun and the planets. They must be real. Therefore, I can see that the other planets are going around the sun. Therefore, dot, dot, dot. He believes the sun is the center of the solar system. Yeah, so I don't know. I don't think anyone disputes that we see what people call planets. I don't know which side he's trying to aim at, right? But basically, I would guess that he's making fun of the idea that you can just say, therefore, we must be going around. We must be a planet that's going around the sun. That, of course, would be ridiculous to think that is logical, or automatically makes sense, or whatever. But it is what it is, man. We've falsified the Earth moving through space. That is a fact. And I really think people should let go of their bias in research. It's pretty important. You can tell I've already read this one because I already laughed. And we'll just read it anyway. Seven at ten extracts says, What's it? I think Ozean is trying to get to the center of Uranus. Thanks for proving the Earth is in the center of Yahweh's beautiful creation. All right. I mean, it looks like I have shit on my nose, but I'm not gay. I swear. I only like penises on trans women. That's it. My, my. That is disgusting. Ozean, you had to throw that in the debate towards the end. Well, yeah, we're getting close to the end for sure. So we've almost got to our likes. I'm going to open up that poll, guys, shortly. It looks like a disavow live chat has really. I'm not Christian, so it doesn't matter. Sencal Grizzly Raider. We're going to carry on, guys. We're not going to get down. Oh, you're going to go ahead. Go ahead. But if you guys want to discuss that, anytime you let me know, Sencal Grizzly Raider says, Globers eat corn the long way. Change my mind. Thanks, Sencal Grizzly Raider for that visual. Simon Allen says, a viewer's W. Well, I think that means win. Viewer's W. Viewer's win. Yeah. So thanks for that, Simon Allen. I'm glad you guys are having fun. We're going to open up the next poll here once we get a question that our, our speakers can dig their teeth into, so I can actually open that. Mr. Monster says, I can see the surface of the moon with the telescope. It's definitely dusty and not light. You can't tell it's dusty by looking at the moon, man. It's ridiculous. There are, there are lunar waves. There are celestial waves in general. It seems like it's translucent at times. There's recorded situations of stars being seen through it, like even by the Royal Astronomical Society. All that aside, it does certainly appear a certain way and could be plasma, could be many things. I think it's pretty asinine to claim you can look at the moon and tell it's dusty. That is just so not true, right? I mean, we have an idea in our mind of what it's supposed to be, and you can think of that when you look at it, but that's just super weird to me, so I don't know. Nope, it's the light for the nighttime. I don't know what it is. It'll be plasma. I don't think people's personal perceptions of what it is is stupid. I don't agree with his personal perspective that it's dusty. I don't see how he can reach this conclusion, but that's the conclusion he's reaching. But this idea of lunar waves and stuff, has anybody ever done that from two entirely different observation points using two or more different cameras in two entirely different locations pointing at the moon at the same time? Well, no, because he had to document the moon. It's just a ridiculous request. He had to document the moon for insane periods of time to catch them. And what people tried to say was that it must be from a plane or a jet. You can literally look at it and prove that there is no such thing at all. For vibrations? Vibrations of what? Is his tripod? Vibrations will make it look like a wave goes across the moon. Yeah, it can be an artifact to the camera. As soon as someone can replicate that, I'll consider that an option. That's not how it works. I did on a video of that. You replicated the lunar wave by moving a tripod? With other devices, but anyways. You've never seen it, bro? Not moving it. Yes. Do you know it also? He also ended up catching it go across the whole sky? The sky is fluid, man. It has fluid-like properties. Which even makes more sense. Why is it just him and why can't we replicate it in multiple locations with different cameras? Why is it just one guy? Why is it not being replicated in multiple locations? I don't know. Then it should be replicated at the same time in multiple locations, is my point. So it's just one guy that's replicated. I mean, I'm always for more replication, dude. There's just one dude with a camera who's making a claim and you're just accepting it as true? No, I saw the video and I thought it was interesting. I've never heard a sufficient response to it other than to try to come up with made-up, baseless excuses that are easily disproven like it was a plane or something. So if I just post a CGI and you just- I know him personally. I don't believe it's CGI. I didn't claim it was some type of- Well, it could be multiple explanations for what it is. Rather than a wave across the sky. Okay. Is that one of the explanations that it could be? Be multiple explanations. Including that. Including that there's a fluid-like medium up there? Test it. You can't even say it out loud. Do you have a motivation for it being a fluid-like medium? Well, no, it just seems to be consistent. Outcome when I look at the sky every night, I don't see a fluid. I don't see it. How come I don't see it? Someone said like 50 people have filmed it. Why are you claiming it's just him? Are you sure? Dude, how many- We should have a poll for that. How many people have seen the sky cause a wave across the sky? How many people will just stare at the moon for like five hours at a time? I used to go lay out staring at the sky all night long. Okay. Okay, dude. You haven't? Yes. Yes. Let's carry on, guys. We're going into circle here. Jesus Morris says Ringo had an unfortunate relationship with his wife. Well, I'll look into it. I don't know anything about that. It doesn't make his- I hate when people ruin rock stars. It doesn't make his banjo playing any worse. Banjo playing? Real fast. Let me read this off. Nikon is claiming parts acquisition problems for the P1000 and its conspicuous time in that they signed a contract with NASA for future outfitting of the Artemis program. So not directly related but like interesting timing, right? Pull the P900 off for parts and then sign a deal with NASA at the same time to be helping with the Artemis program. But, you know, whatever, conspiracy doesn't- Well, thank you for injecting there with six. I couldn't read your question verbatim there, Jesus. Cause it's an accusation. I don't think I'm able to make on air. And the Beatles are a bit bigger. Is it about my sexuality? I'm okay with that. No, I was going to say the Beatles are bigger, I think, than modern data baits. So we won't say anything about them. Mr. Eman says, the Wallall expedition duplicated the verified the Eddington experiment in 1922. Obviously, Whitsett is ignorant of this fact. Say it again. Say it again. Wall Hall. Yeah, I'll try to clean it up because some of these- Can you spell it? The Wallall W-A-L-L-A-L-L expedition duplicated and verified the Eddington experiment in 1922. Obviously, Whitsett is ignorant of this fact, they say. So they're coming right at you, Whitsett, with this question. Well, I can- It's funny because you're saying verified it and literally Eddington said, oh man, this observation is a major problem for relativity. It didn't match what was predicted to happen. And it has to happen if relativity is true. And the vast majority of the plates didn't show it at all, the photographic plates. And then they say a couple of them kind of did after corrections, but they lost them. Eddington himself said it was a problem and didn't match the predictions. You're saying that it confirmed it, right? Or corroborated it, corroborated what? The fact that it didn't match at all. I'll have to look into that one specifically. I don't know. From what I remember for one, the very phenomenon itself can be thoroughly explained with classical mechanics and things like plasma. But outside of that, we have to establish it's a real legitimate phenomena to actually have to explain from understanding most of it, like all the subsequent tests were also off and rarely observed and stuff like that. But I can look into it. But one thing I know for sure, people should stop saying that the 1919 Eddington experiment proved it because that isn't true at all. That is a blatant revision and mischaracterization of history. And bro, if you guys are telling the truth, you should make sure to stop lying about things because it's just going to hurt your cause anyway. So I don't know. You're right. I don't know that much about the 1922 test though. I'd have to look into it. Let's carry on. And I will say I opened up the poll for you to vote for your favorite speaker. But I do hope that we received those 10 likes to get to 500. We were so close and I figured this was a good time to open it. So I sure did. So vote for your favorite speaker and we'll give them an extra minute to expound on their ideas at the end of our debate. Joshua Jamie asks saying we are in the center of the perceivable universe is misleading and irrelevant to where we actually are located in the universe. The answer right now is we don't know. The evidence right now is that all astronomical observation ever shows that the Earth is in the center. We made interferometry measurements that are over 10 times more sensitive than it needs to be to measure the Earth's assumed orbit. It didn't measure it because the Earth is not moving. And that basically what modern cosmology now has is the universe must be expanding in all directions and accelerating to create the illusion that the Earth is in the center, which means there has to be some incredible energy force, energy source that's causing it to do that. We can't find it. It's nowhere to be found. It can't be defined. No one can even like understand what it could be. And then when we applied vacuum energy to us off by 10 to the 120th hour greatest discrepancy in modern quote unquote science. We have no idea. No evidence for knowledge has to be there because well it has to be. And then of course dark matter problem, Hubble tension problem, modern cosmology is a complete and total disaster because they will not even accept the evidence that's right in front of them that the Earth is in the center. So just because you say we don't know, well, yeah, actually the evidence has shown us that the Earth is in the center consistently. We falsified claims of motion, which means you have only one option almost done. Only one option that's that the Earth is in the center and because it doesn't have the dark matter and dark energy problems, it's a minimum of 96% more viable. So stop having a bias. All right. Good to resolve the problem dark energy, dark mattery. So 96% more viable. And the Hubble law says that any place in the universe would appear to be in the center of the universe. I know that's what you said, but in order to claim that, you have to claim that the universe is accelerating and expanding in all directions, which requires dark energy, but has never been found and was off by 10 and 120th power with a predicted value. So you just, wait, we don't need dark energy. We don't need dark energy. I just explained Gupta's paper that just released like this month does away with dark energy. It accepts CCC and tired light to explain the model and the universe is 26 billion years old and does away with dark energy and dark matter. That's not a new idea. I know it's not new. They tried to double the age of the universe like a year ago because of Hubble's observations. I know. Any copy? It's funny though because we've pointed out it's flat Earth. There's that red shift could be because of attenuation of light, which is what tired light is. And we get ridiculed by everyone. I don't know what physicists you just brought up, but it just proves my point further that your entire model is a disaster and it's falling apart. I don't accept it as true. I'm just saying there are other possible world views that don't include dark energy and dark matter that don't require that all that exists is the Earth. You have to have dark energy to claim the Earth just appears to be in the center because of expansion and to say that it looks like it's in the center, but it's not in the center requires expansion. That's just a fact. I just gave an example of the model that doesn't include dark energy and dark matter. Does it include expansion? Does it include expansion? It includes expansion, but it doesn't include dark energy and dark matter. Okay. Let's carry on. Then it hasn't. Yeah, we'll just stop. Yeah, okay. Thank you so much. I know you guys got lots of thoughts and we're going to try to carry on. Cole Wilman, Wilheim, sorry, and we'll just try to keep this to you, which is just this is their first super chat. Thank you so much for your participation at Modern Day Debate. What is a meteor on flat Earth? And we'll just let you answer that one with it. There's basically no actual evidence of rocks falling from the sky. There are craters, which have been observed to happen, say when certain water actually comes off underneath the ground. That's a real phenomena. That's for sure a real thing. It makes sense because as the water comes up, it gives you an equal distribution of the water. You have a symmetrical circle. The claim that the rocks came and hit the ground has no actual evidence because conveniently what it says is, well, when you go look at the crater where the meteor hit it, all the rock got disintegrated. So you won't see any pieces of rock or anything. It's all gone. And oh, it may have come in at an angle and stuff, but it exploded. So it makes it look like it's evenly distributed. And the entire idea of a meteor was literally predicted in a science fiction book before it was ever even claimed to exist, including the craters where the craters were ever even claimed to be discovered. So it's literally meteors were predicted in a science fiction book long before they even claimed to have discovered the first crater. We don't ever see rocks actually falling from the sky. As for meteor showers, they look like electrical discharges. They're cyclical. We have six radiant sources for most of the sporadic meteor showers, doesn't work in your model. Thank you so much. What's it? Icy Tawa says, always, always, always use NASA's worldview to view your satellite images. It's all there for you, just for your future debates. I think they're being cheeky. And Icy Tawa, thank you. I've read your super chat. Did you have thoughts, Ocean? I didn't think we'd have to watch that. Yeah, NASA's not a worldview. Okay. Any other thoughts? No. NASA is faking gay. Okay. Josh, would you... I didn't know it had a sexuality, but that's okay. Well, now you do. NASA literally says, NASA is gay. It rags about it. I watched your video. They are accepting of people of multiple lifestyles. It just says NASA. It says NASA's gay. So I'm going to... Are you big a titter? Are you going to let NASA be gay? NASA says to accept people of multiple lifestyles. NASA says we are gay. All right. Let's carry on with it. This is nothing to do with geocentrism. I watched your video. Don't be big a titter, bro. I watched your video. Don't be big a titter, bro. Let NASA be gay, bro. All right. What is it? 2024, man. All right. Before I mute you guys, this is nothing to do with what we've been talking about. Don't make me go dad mode on you guys. We've had a lot of fun. Joshua Jamie says, BBC Earth has extensive HD aerial video journalism of Antarctica landscape and wildlife thoughts. Cool. Awesome. Antarctica wildlife? Thoughts over there? Well, they did a... Isn't there a series of that you can go watch at Antarctica wildlife? You also go watch BBs. You can also watch Mr. Beast. Oh, it's dude. Like seriously? You think that proves something? Yeah. 24 hours sun. And it doesn't show the sun for 24 hours. There's other videos to do. I accept this testimony. It's all fake. Okay. He didn't even say... He didn't even claim... He said it was daylight. He didn't claim he saw the sun itself. Let's move on. I don't think testimony... Sorry, I asked. You don't think testimony evidence is evidence? He didn't claim to see the sun itself for 24 hours. He didn't in his friend did. Let's carry on. No, just daylight, not sun itself. Anyway. All right. I was gonna say let's carry on, I suppose. But yeah, let's... I should start wrapping my answers. Oh, you want to start wrapping your answers? I was playing D&D as a bard earlier and every time I gave bardic inspiration, I was trying to come up with some rhymes. As right knows, I can't sing. I'm gonna rhyme all my answers if I can. I was gonna say you can rap probably better than I can. I only sing. I can't rap. I just sing hardcore. So Mr. E-man and I try not to. I can't sing very good. Every time somebody asks me to sing back up, I'm always just like right at the front. And I'm like, I'm sorry, I'm trying to hang back, but I'm a lead singer. I can't help it. Mr. E-man asks, why does Whitsitt not agree to debate McToon on celestial navigation? I didn't know about this. Is that something that's happening or... Oh, you know that that's obviously fake news. Fake news. Fake news. Who runs the world? Hey, I'm not gonna rhyme yet, but check this out, man. Check this out. So McToon is lying. We've fully exposed him. He then reached out to James and claimed I was asking him to do the debate and just waiting for James to set it up. Well, okay. Well, he shouldn't be lying. This person's not. This person's just saying something about McToon. He's saying it because he's heard McToon say it. Yeah, that's why. I never challenged him to debate. The debate amount of principally talked about my daughter and how I should have her taken away and supported comments like that. So out of principle, I do not talk to him, including FTFE. So let's just drop it. Please stop asking about it. All right. I think the record's been made clear and I understand that. What's it? So let's carry on. Free free Palestine says the axis of evil is an astronomical term that destroyed all helio such sexual wet dreams. Earth is seriously in the center of the whole universe. I wasn't expecting that. I don't know if there's any commentary we can have on that free free Palestine except for maybe a couple laughs in the live stream. The axis of evil is an astronomical term that is destroyed by the helio sexual wet dreams. Earth is seriously the center of the whole universe. Well, thank you, free free Palestine. If anybody wants to jump in on the panel, you can. I can. I always had to look this up. The axis of evil. It's a cosmic background radiation. Anisotropic distribution where it intersects. It should be should have no preferred direction, which is isotropic. It should be homogenous evenly distributed. But we saw that it wasn't completely evenly distributed. There was an area that was like basically uneven distribution and it had a preferred direction. It was an isotropic and that preferred direction was straight towards the earth and then it intersected on the earth. So it was called the axis of evil because it was like contrary to the cosmological prediction that it should have been random without a preferred direction and evenly distributed. And then that 23.4 degrees that people claim is the tilt of the earth. That was that was observed. Right. Way out deep in space. This anisotropic energy was at that angle way out past, you know, anywhere it should be if it was just the earth tilted. It should only be on the local solar system scale. So yeah, I falsified the heliostrict model. They called it evil because, you know, that's how science works. She called observation and evidence evil really scientific. It just changed the paradigm from the heliocentric model to a more universe concept of the model expansionary model and stuff like that. Right. So well, well, you agree that if the earth is tilted, it's a ball that's tilted, right? And then it makes things look like it's tilted. That's why they say that the sun is on its plane, right? Because the earth is actually tilted. So it makes the sun look like it's tilted. Right. But what I'm saying is they saw that tilt. They saw that tilt. Way out into space. It should only be on the local solar system scale. It refutes it. It shows at the earth in the center with the anisotropic inhomogeneous distribution centered on the earth. Wait, wait. Somebody in chat, live chat, before the debate started said, said that you lose the debate if you say bro or dude. So just so I can lose the debate, I'm going to say, hey, bro, how you doing, dude? But yeah, yeah. They can't pick. They can't make up their mind. Either it's that I'm too casual and say bro too much or I use too big of words. And I see you do all the time. One thing I've learned with is that there's no pleasing people. Either Ryan shouldn't inject as much as he does or Ryan should inject more. There's no healthy balance for the people and that want to complain. So if there's somebody who wants to complain, they'll have at it. But understand, we see you and we understand exactly what you are whiners. All right. Cole Wilman says, at Whitsitt, what is a meteor? Already answered that. Yeah, I feel like I wait, wait, wait. Same question. I feel like I answered it, but you didn't listen. But they are not real. They were predicted or it was a prediction in a book that science fiction. There you go. Let's continue on. Darth Jar Jar says, Whitsitt, have you come up with a testable accurate model of the shape of the earth if it is not a globe off topic? But let's give Whitsitt an isolated one minute. Not sure why they got a hate, but I just know they lied about this place. And I would have to know the entire rabbit to claim a shape. So I'm pretty cool just knowing that the earth is not a ball with the radius value of 3,900. And what is it? Eight, something eight. Okay, I tried. Anyway, like, I don't know what the shape of the earth is, man, because I don't know what the entirety is, what the dimensions are, whatever. Flats of general description, right? There are many plain shapes. It could be a plain triangle, plain circle, plain square, plain rectangle, right? Those are all plain shapes. So no, I don't, I don't know what the shape is, why you hate it. Okay, let's go. All right, Robin Webster says Ozean is correct. So he wins. Did you have anything you want to say to Robin Webster? I'll give you a, it's just a fan chat, so I'll give you 15 seconds if you want to say something to Robin. She's biased. Thank you, Robin. 39, 59. Yeah, I think it's 30. Oh, I could have made it rhyme. 39, 58.8, I think is what it is. Dang it. That's why I stutter because I wanted to get the, whatever. Sorry, I interrupted. Yeah, you're trying to be all of that, but you ain't it. No, I'm sorry. I'm not, man. I forgot. I choked on the 39, 58.8. Do you believe in the Outer Lands aliens, like some of the other Earthers do? I don't, there may, there may be more land. I mean, it would certainly make sense to hide it from people if there is, or it could be more land in the Southern Ocean. So I don't know. I don't, I don't know. I don't believe in aliens at all. It's just sort of weird. Maybe they exist somewhere. I don't believe in stuff. I don't, I don't really think I believe in aliens either, my brother. Let's carry on there, guys. And don't mind what I just said in the live chat. I, you know, me and Whitsitt, we get along famously and I was just wrapped up for just one, one brief second. It was fine. It was fun. Matt Bures says, Whitsitt, I love you so much, bro. Don't take your foot off this guy's neck. You've got way more support than you think, buddy. Word solid is yummy for us. Flat Earthers. I'm not sure what they're trying to say there, but it's for you. Thank you so much. Damn, I just did. Fifteen seconds for Whitsitt. He's got a fan chat. If it's sincere, then thank you, man. And obviously what I found out is people, you make like kind of, I mean, higher level points, right? That are kind of complex. And you use very specifically technical terminology like, I don't know why, but you can never learn something from a Flat Earther, right? Because they're stupid, right? Like they're the stupidest people ever. So in order to avoid that, maybe you didn't know something or don't know how to answer something, they just try to dismiss it as word solid. But it's all good, man. You know, who cares? I've understand all these concepts you talk about, because I spend a lot of time listening to what you talk about. So I don't say you say word solid because you use unconventional language, but it's not language that's not understandable. Thank you, man. Yeah. Last super chat before we move into closing our Q&A question there, and then we will move into our closing statements. Anthony Sikant says, does a witsit ever lose a poll on modern data bait? I can't remember the last time you did, but generally our audience has big hankering for witsit. So we appreciate you coming out and having the discussion witsit. I can answer that. Go ahead. William Harris. You lost William Harris's poll. I think that was the only one I saw. You mean William Harris, the guy that won the after showing he said, oh, well, yeah, I don't think the audience is smart enough to understand logic. So I intentionally used fallacies in a pill to a motion to try to trick them into thinking that I didn't that I won. Well, he won that poll. So it worked. Was the question like who won the debate? I hate those. People don't win or lose to be. I hate those polls. It should be about learning. Remember the other guy just said in his super he said, Ozean is correct. That means he won. Like that's not how that works either, right? Like it doesn't. You can be correct and debate it terribly and use fallacies and your argument is trash and you could still be correct. So then I guess if I'm going to close out this poll and in any case, you have won that extra minute. We will say I put up the poll as who was your favorite speaker. You know, if you interpret that as who is the most palatable speaker. That's probably a good way to that's probably a good way. Yeah, because at the end of the day, no matter whether you agree or disagree with people, there's not going to be an end of people that you agree or disagree with on any number of things, whether that's your favorite Star Wars character or these topics that we talk about here. So the main thing that we want to try to establish is that we learn how to talk with people that we disagree with. So Whitsett, you did win the poll. 67% voted Whitsett as the favorite speaker and 33% for Ozean. So Ozean, we will give you a minute here to close your thoughts on the debate here. Just one second. Yeah, one minute. I just wanted to make sure we didn't have any other questions. One minute on the floor for you, Ozean. I'm much to say I'm posting an after show on Matters Down. Anybody here is welcome. We're going to have 10 people on our panel. So if you want to come hang out on a panel, please do. Whitsett, you're invited unless you're hosting your own after show. I know you do that too. With that, I think the idea of centeredness has more to do with our value in the cosmos. I think we talked about that often about what's special about us. And I don't think it matters about our physical location in the universe to give ourselves value and purpose and meaning. And I think this is what the debate is really about. And I expected Whitsett to win because he's a great public speaker and I'm just a midget. So anyways, thank you so much. That's it. All right. Thank you so much, Ozean, for being here. And yeah, no need to be hard on yourself. We appreciate you here at Modern Data Bait. And I appreciate you, buddy. No matter what indifference is, we may have had in the past. I still enjoy you quite a bit when we get to hang out here. Over to you, Whitsett. You got two minutes on the floor. All right. Cool. So it's pretty simple, man. You know, obviously you don't feel like you're moving or anything, right? Like the default is that everything is moving around us. Look at the sun, the moon, the stars, whatever. They claim that we are actually moving and it's just an illusion. But what they didn't tell you is that the people that came up with the belief that the earth is not in the center right so that we're going around the sun, they literally worship the sun. Literally. So like watch the documentary Heliosaurus tree as well as the principle and you'll find out though and Heliosaurus tree breaks it down. You can research it yourself. They worship the sun. They thought it was symbolic of enlightenment and illumination. And so they were like, well, we must all be going around the sun since it's like the most powerful, most important thing. That is weird. That is creepy. That is not science whatsoever. And they track their religion all the way back to the mystery schools, all the way back to Horace, etc. So that's the inception of it. Then what happens? Well, we have a Pernicus, Kepler, Newton. You can actually get Kepler's laws from Newton. So it's not even important. That's not even a cause claim. Doesn't work. It's refuted, blah, blah, long story short. I'm like the last minute. This is basically what's happened is that the evidence, it was one thing to say, well, we worship the sun and we believe the sun's so special. Let's claim we go around it to moving to the point where we actually directly refuted it. Okay. And we've made precise measurements that have falsified the claim that the earth is moving. It's shown that a stationary. So what happens is consistently the geocentric prediction is met. And then the heliocentric model changes it model to say, oh, well now our new model is what the geocentric model predicts. Trust me, that's how it works. And so everything is an illusion. 30 seconds. That doesn't work. So we made precise measurements that have falsified the claim motion of the earth to stationary. It's in the center. That's why everything in the universe looks like it's in the center. Last thing, that explains why we don't need dark matter, dark energy or all these other crazy problems with cosmology because if the earth's in the center, you don't have that problem. So why don't we just accept it for what it is? Maybe you are significant. It'll be okay. That is time. Well, thank you so much, Ozean. And thank you so much, Whitsett, for your closing statements. A big round of virtual applause for both of our speakers. If you guys are having aftershows, I encourage our audience to check the links to our speakers in the live chat. Ozean has already stated that he will be having a live show afterwards. And Whitsett, maybe as well. So check out. Ether Cosmology, Ether Cosmology, Alan Space Audits. I think that they may have an aftershow. All right. Well, thank you so much, Whitsett. So you know where to find the other side of our argument tonight. If you want to hear more, so thank you to everybody who is hanging out at Modern Day Debate. I'm going to close at the show and we will be back for more juicy debates going forward. In the meantime, you can enjoy my lovely demo of me screaming at you. This is Greed and this is my band, Light and Shade. Because this is all I get to do at Modern Day Debate. It's just a little bit of this. So enjoy everybody and thanks, Whitsett. Thanks, Ozean. It's been a pleasure. Love. Yeah, Ryan. Geocentrism with Ozean and Whitsett. I hope you guys enjoyed what we were able to provide out of the debate and make sure you hit the like button and subscribe. I'm just checking into the live chat right now because I don't want to forget to thank some of our regulars that come out here like Maximiliano Villa who has a membership. Kent Speak, Flat Sabbath. Thank you guys so much for your membership and also keeping the live chat. We appreciate you guys especially when we have these debates and a big shout out to our mods and also MXXD. Once again, you guys hanging out in the live chat very consistently. I can rely on you guys to make sure that we're keeping things friendly and keeping things civil. So I appreciate you guys. Catherine MC, the name of the band's light and shade. If you just check out my YouTube link you'll see the music that most of it was from my musical partner who has a Juno Award which is a big thing in Canada and not so much in America. So he does all the guitar playing and the drum organizing and stuff. I don't think he plays drums. I think he just programs them. But still it's a lot better than what we were doing before with just the electronic drum kit and live recordings for Modern Database. So yeah, I am glad that some of the people do enjoy that but honestly that's just my little side thing that I have fun with. Ultimately it's about the speakers. We have great speakers at Modern Database as far as I'm concerned. There's a lot of things that are getting discussed that are either important or if you don't think they're important the most important thing that you can get out of this is maybe a way to have these discussions or if these discussions get out of whack and you're like you know what I wouldn't want to have a discussion the way that this is breaking down on Modern Database. Once again take away from that what you will. You know there's all kinds of fun and things that you can learn from engaging in spaces like this whether you're hitting the after show or you're watching the speakers in their spaces that they're hanging out in you're going to have I think a great time navigating the sea of ideas and that's what we're trying to provide to you guys at Modern Database is an avenue in which you can navigate these sea of ideas and also people that will provide those ideas and then you can kind of chew on them as you will. So yeah I'm going to try to keep on rocking their flat Sabbath that's all I know how to do. So once again everybody if you're still hanging out in the live chat hit the like button you know I do see we past 500 quite a bit it goes and I figured we would and we gave that extra minute to our speaker which I personally think was fun maybe we'll keep on trying to do that going forward and yeah I do have another song that I'm working on that's maybe a little less dark to intro our debates you know I heard a couple more fun theme songs earlier and I was thinking man you know doing a song like Greed is really dark to open up a stream where we're trying to debate and like I say potentially teach people how to have better conversations so we started out with a really dark and kind of evil sounding song maybe that won't translate so well so you know I'm glad that you know for whoever's been enjoying it is enjoying it but I'm going to try to get something that's a little bit more lighthearted potentially going forward so that we can like I said maybe maybe not turn people off in the the sense of how dark it sounds I am trying to read these as as we go along I'll just I'll just at you there you go I'm just gonna at you Carolina there you go and thank you as well Dean appreciate you guys coming out and once again big big shout out to our mods you guys don't know how much they mitigate in the chat of course I can see you know this has been you know mitigated by xyz and I appreciate you guys so yeah I'm gonna close it out I'm tired it's 220 here in Nova Scotia I don't mind dark music says Batman of course you don't mind dark music Batman you're Batman Batman likes dark stuff all right before I get down into into impression lane thank you everybody I really appreciate it we're gonna be back in a few days and once again if you guys want to participate in these debates if you're looking at speakers and you're thinking oh my god I could have brought up this argument this argument I could have held that person's feet to the fire email me or James so you email James at moderndaydebate at gmail.com or you can email me at bc.adtatoutlook.com both ways are a great way to get into this sphere and we can get you guys debating against people that you might think that like I said you can hold your hold their feet to the fire so you know don't feel don't feel too daunted by this space so it's very friendly as far as you know when I'm hosting I try to keep things to what our speakers ask so sometimes people will say oh you know Ryan's not injecting when this person says this crazy thing that I don't like but a little do they know that we may have agreed beforehand that we're going to let certain things slide so yeah once again Catherine MC it's just through the my YouTube there I think if you look it up on YouTube itself agreed by light and shade you can find it but I'm not here just to self promote as much as I want to provide you guys with good theme music to get jazzed for the debates so let's try to keep it friendly everybody let's hit the notifications for any upcoming debate debates that you see on modern day debate I'd love to see you guys and once again email me or James if you want to participate and in the meantime I'm just going to switch it back over here because I have to go to bed and we're nearing on 230 now on my time so good night Ken speak Michael punn Sean Chattney Catherine MC Hawkeaux Sean Chattney again see you you're just active there so good night and we'll see you next time Cheers